Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SION COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Civil Service Dispute (Value Added Tax Repayments)

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 6 April, if he will make a statement on the steps so far taken by collectors of taxes to help businesses faced by difficulties because repayments of value added tax are being delayed by reason of the Civil Service dispute.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): Collectors of taxes appreciate the cash flow difficulties which face businesses as a result of the interruption of VAT repayments. They are taking those into account in considering how far to press for payment of both PAYE and other tax liabilities which are overdue. In addition, the Board of Customs and Excise will on request confirm to a bank that a business is normally in receipt of repayments of VAT.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am deeply grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, which will be of considerable encouragement to the many businesses, particularly small private businesses, which are suffering severely under the restrictions caused by the unnecessary Civil Service strike. Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to monitor the situation to ensure that, if it is possible to alleviate the hardship to small businesses, that will be done?

Mr. Brittan: We are keeping an eye on the sitiuation and doing everything we can to help. I underline my hon. Friend's comment about the completely unnecessary nature of the action.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that VAT repayments are being made to some businesses, particularly those which complain enough?

Mr. Brittan: I do not know what information the hon. Gentleman has to suggest that that is so. If he would like to give me such information, I shall consider it.

Mr. Farr: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is wrong that the Inland Revenue should send threatening letters to one-man businesses for the payment of some trivial sum of tax when four-figure sums are due in the repayment of VAT?

Mr. Brittan: As I have said to the House, the Inland Revenue will take into account overdue VAT repayments in considering the collection of other taxes. If there is any case in which it appears that that has not been done, I shall undertake to look into it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: How much revenue has been lost as a result of the action by the civil servants? What instructions have been given by the Inland Revenue to those people who owe the Inland Revenue pay-as-you-earn, but in their turn are also owed VAT repayments? My information is that some pressure is being continued, at least on some people who owe PAYE. What effect is that action having on the money supply and generally on interest rates?

Mr. Brittan: With regard to the first point, the latest available estimate of the revenue which is delayed as a result of the dispute—it is a temporary delay—is about£3¼ billion to £3½ billion. I stress that the loss of revenue is temporary and will be recovered. I said in my original answer what the attitude is towards PAYE.

Money Aggregates M1 and PSL2

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recently known rates of growth of the monetary aggregates M1 and PSL2, and whether he is satisfied with these trends.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): M1 and PSL2 increased by 4·8 per cent., and1·8 per cent. respectively in banking April. Needless to say, all the monetary aggregates were heavily distorted by the effects of the Civil Service strike. In the six months prior to April, M1 and PSL2 had grown at an annual rate of 7·7 per cent. and11·5 per cent. respectively. Despite the distortions to which I referred a moment ago which will continue so long as the strike lasts, there is no reason whatever to doubt that underlying monetary growth is consistent with the Government's objectives.

Mr. Wainwright: Bearing in mind the fact that the distortions are real and that the increases just announced by the Financial Secretary are on top of a high starting base, when does he expect a higher rate of inflation to reflect the increases which he has just revealed?

Mr. Lawson: I am glad to know that the hon. Member accepts that the rate of inflation depends on the rate of growth of the money supply. That, at least, is an advance. However, if he pursues his studies a little further, he will find that month-to-month fluctuations have no effect on the money supply. Certainly nothing which lasted six months or less would have any effect.

Mr. W. Benyon: Will my right hon. Friend resist any advice to raise interest rates as a result of the temporary fall in the value of the pound?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. We shall judge the appropriate level of interest rates according to the


underlying monetary situation and we shall not be affected by these temporary blips. Nevertheless, it is a matter of regret—indeed, something that I thought the whole House would deplore—that a spokesman for the Civil Service unions should have stated a fortnight ago that a deliberate purpose of the strike was to cause interest rates to be higher than they would otherwise be.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not time that the Financial Secretary and his colleagues admitted the truth—that their regulation of the economy, for what it is worth, has completely run out of control? Last year the right hon. Gentleman's excuse was the removal of the corset. This year it is withdrawal of labour symptoms. What will it be next year, assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is still in Government?

Mr. Lawson: Far from the policy being out of control, inflation is moving down very satisfactorily. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Civil Service strike is not an excuse. It is a reality which is harming millions of people.

Northern Region

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of his Budget measures have proved beneficial to the economy of the Northern region.

Mr. Foster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects his policies to result in an up- turn in the economy of the Northern region.

Mr. Brittan: Business throughout Britain, including of course the Northern region, has benefited from our success in bringing down inflation and the cut in minimum lending rate announced on Budget day. The benefit of the other measures in the Budget specifically designed to help businesses, such as the stock relief scheme and the proposals relating to small businesses, will be felt before long. The forecast published at Budget time shows some growth in output between the first and second halves of this year, and further recovery in 1982. The Northern region will share in the benefits.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As a Member of Parliament for the Northern region, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the great sense of concern and despair in the region about the Budget. Will he consider inflating the economies of the Northern region and the regions of high unemployment by a programme of selective public investment in capital projects in the areas of industrial decline?

Mr. Brittan: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the state of the economy in the Northern region. The indications that I see are quite clear. Above all else, that part of the country feels that any recovery which comes must be soundly based and must not consist simply of a cash injection which will rapidly lead to inflation.

Mr. Foster: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that nowhere else in Western Europe has manufacturing output fallen by 20 per cent. and unemployment risen by 77 per cent? Therefore, will he admit to the 200,000 unemployed in the Northern region and to the 22,000 on short-time working that the Government's policies have caused the severity of the depression in the Northern region? Will he now abandon his obstruction to further investment in British Telecom, British Gas and British Rail?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis at all. We have done worse than other countries in Western Europe because of the backlog of years in which our productivity did not increase as much as that in competing countries whereas pay levels did, with the result that people have priced themselves out of employment.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Chief Secretary aware that if the Government pigheadedly stick to the policies that they have pursued in the last two years, there will be no industrial base left in the Northern region? Will he acknowledge the sense of seeking to alter those policies to get some public investment moving in the region, particularly to help the construction industry?

Mr. Brittan: Of course public investment has its part to play, but I do not accept that it is only by means of public investment that we shall get things going in the Northern region in the way in which Opposition Members and I want. I believe that a soundly based recovery, based upon a real handling of the inflation which underlies the problem, will lead to growth and to increases in employment over a period of years.

Mr. Shore: The House has listened to a statement from the Chief Secretary of almost mind-blowing complacency. He ought to visit the Northern region and find out exactly what has gone on there. What evidence is he prepared to give the House that private investment and output or public investment and output are growing or are likely to grow in the Northern region?

Mr. Brittan: I shall not receive any lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about visiting the Northern region. I am a Member of Parliament for the Northern region, not one for the London area. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I regularly go to my constituency and I do not need to read about what goes on from learned economic tracts. I shall not take that from the right hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well that I have not been complacent and that I have not said that the Northern region or the country as a whole is at present replete with investment plans. I have said that I am perfectly confident that it is only by dealing with the underlying causes of our problems, which I described in answer to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), that there is any chance whatever of providing a basis for sound investment. That is the case, whether or not the right hon. Gentleman likes it.

Taxation Levels

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce levels of taxation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The burden of taxation will be reduced as soon as economic circumstances allow.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the Tory manifesto pledge at the last election that all levels of income tax would be cut, can the Chancellor explain why a married couple on average earnings with two children are now paying considerably more in income tax as well as in indirect taxation? Why did the manifesto not tell the truth and say simply that it would only be the rich and those on high earnings who would benefit from the Tory tax cuts?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is not as the hon. Gentleman has described it—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]


The recent Budget imposed its largest tax increase on those with the highest incomes. Taking account of other factors since 1979, real after-tax incomes rose by 17 per cent. between1977 and1980, and, even after taking account of the tax burden as it now stands, all households are considerably better off in real terms than they were in1978–79.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that reducing taxation primarily depends on reducing Government expenditure?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am only too glad to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. I wish that one were able to look forward to Opposition support for that proposition comparable with that which my hon. Friend has given.

Mr. Shore: I hope that the Chancellor will be more forthcoming than the Chief Secretary when answering questions. What are the facts about the increased burden of taxation? Is it or is it not the case that it has increased on the great mass of people at work—taking account of national insurance contributions—during the period in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been responsible for our affairs? Is that not a flat contradiction of all the pledges which the Chancellor and his colleagues made during the last general election?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The facts are absolutely clear. During a time when national production has not been growing, the percentage burden of tax on income has increased; there is no mystery about that whatever. It has been said thousands of times. But that fact must be viewed in the context of the rise in real personal incomes which has otherwise taken place. When those two things are put alongside each other, it will be seen that real personal disposable income for the great bulk of households is substantially higher this year than it was when the Labour Party was in Government. There is no prospect of getting taxes down unless we have the support of the Labour Party—which I very much doubt—for reductions in public expenditure.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: When there is a capacity to reduce taxation, will my right hon. and learned Friend think hard about first acting to reduce the national insurance surcharge which will do most to restore the profitability of industry and hence its capacity to employ more people?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's point deserves consideration. As I said in the Budget Statement, the purpose of the tax changes being made was to lighten, as far as possible, the burdens on industry, even at the cost of a higher burden on personal taxation. However, other considerations must also be taken into account.

European Community(Membership Cost)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total cost of European Economic Community membership for 1981, including imports duties, agricultural levies, value added tax and the cost of net food imports from other Community countries over and above world market prices.

Mr. Lawson: The United Kingdom's net contribution to the 1981 Community budget, including import duties, agricultural levies and value added tax, is estimated to be about £500 million. As for the non-budgetary cost, I regret that the information is not yet available.

Mr. Marlow: When we are in negotiation with our partners in the Community over budget contributions, will my right hon. Friend give equal prominence in future to the massive cost, estimated at some £1,500 million, that our housewife has to bear to pay for continental foodstuffs at up to twice world market prices?

Mr. Lawson: I do not accept my hon. Friend's figure, but he is right that there is a non-budgetary cost which must be taken into account. However, the primary need is to build on the considerable success on the budget contribution achieved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the 30 May agreement last year. We must build on that, make it permanent and improve it in other ways, as was outlined in the important speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor at The Hague last night.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Out of that £500 million, can the Minister estimate the amount which will be used to supply subsidised food for the Russians, paid for by British taxpayers, including the sick, the disabled and the unemployed, who all pay tax?

Mr. Lawson: I hope as little as possible, and, if possible, nothing.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Whatever may be the significance of the contribution to the Community budget of some 1 per cent. of public expenditure, is it nevertheless true that membership of the Community is of inestimable importance because of the market it offers to our exporters and still more exclusion from the market would be intensely damaging to British industry?

Mr. Lawson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that membership of the Community is of great importance to this country, politically and economically.

Mr. Straw: Does the Financial Secretary recognise that the Government have contributed to the rocketing costs of the Common Market by their surrender to a highly inflationary farm price settlement in April? Does he also recognise that the British people, since the Government took office, have increasingly voiced their opposition to entry to the Common Market and that the number of people expressing support for the Common Market in opinion polls has dropped by 80 per cent. since May 1979? In the negotiations for future financial contributions to the Common Market, will the Financial Secretary make it clear, as the Chancellor failed to do yesterday, that the British Government will veto any increase in the 1 per cent. Ceiling on VAT?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman should know that our position is that there will be no increase in the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling and all our negotiations and discussions on the restructuring of the budget and other matters are within that firm context. It ill behoves the Opposition to talk about high Community farm price increases since we took office. The facts are that since the Government took office, farm price increases in the Common Market have averaged 5 per cent. per year, while under the Labour Government such increases averaged 7½ per cent. a year.

Capital Investment

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects capital investment in the United Kingdom to start rising again.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The latest intentions inquiry by the Department of Industry into fixed investment by manufacturing, distributive and service industries points to a recovery in the volume of investment next year.

Mr. Woolmer: Has the Chancellor seen the official publication British News which shows that his Government inherited a record level of manufacturing investment from the Labour Government and that the CBI's latest monthly report shows that investment in manufacturing fell last year, will fall by 15 per cent. this year and again next year? Is that not a disastrous record? When will the Chancellor accept that his policies are causing the destruction of manufacturing investment? Is it not time that he changed his policies, rebuilt investment in industry or resigned?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman gives a distorted picture of what is happening. It is true that there has been a reduction in investment last year and this year, but all that must be read subject to the facts that I have given to the House, that there is likely to be a reversal of that and an increase in the following year. If one is looking at surveys of business opinion, it is important to take into account the fact that, since the end of last year, there has been a steady upward movement in business confidence as expressed in surveys carried out by theFinancial Times and the CBI.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: When will the Chancellor's change of mind on finance for capital investment by British Telecom be followed by his change of mind on capital investment by British Railways, the National Coal Board, the Post Office and the sewerage authorities?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must understand that there is no question of a change of mind on this matter. The announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, about the British Telecom investment was of a planned increase in profitable investment within existing programmes. If a nationalised industry's investment is running at broadly the same real level as in 1975 and, over the next three years, will rise from £4½ billion to £5¼ billion, it is important to keep that in mind and to continue considering such investment proposals by the test: is the investment profitable and are the resources available to finance them?

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the level of capital investment will be adversely affected, as a number of firms are claiming, if clause 30 of the Finance Bill, on sickness payments, is enacted?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The link between the point made by my hon. Friend and the question on the Order Paper is so tenuous that I must congratulate him on his ingenuity. A number of people are concerned about clause 30. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has seen a deputation about it. The Standing Committee will be debating that clause tonight.

Mr. Cook: Does the Chancellor bother to read the publications of the CBI survey section? If he does, how can he reconcile his answer with the conclusion of the survey that over half the firms surveyed will be investing less in the next year than they did last year? How does he

expect to achieve the leaner and more competitive industry that he is always promising on the basis of falling investment in manufacturing?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: All these changes take place at different times in relation to each other.

Mr. Cook: What does that mean?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The reality is that there are substantial signs of rising productivity throughout British industry. [HON. MEMBERS: Where?"] I have already given the facts. Reports from companies throughout British industry have disclosed the prospect of an upturn in investment in 1982. The point that should be emphasised by the Opposition and the Government is that the most effective contribution to be made to expansion is continued progress, the reduction of unit labour costs and the achievement of reasonable pay settlements.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call one more hon. Member from each side.

Mr. Whitney: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers the problems of capital investment, will he accept that there is inevitable competition between the claims of the private wealth-producing sector and the public sector? Will he also take account of the fact that some of the propositions being put to him by the public sector may be based on projections and statistics which are highly questionable in terms of productivity and returns?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The points made by my hon. Friend are entirely valid and important. It was accepted by all sides at the NEDC meeting yesterday, for example, that questions of public sector investment should be related to the prospective profitability of that investment and the record of the enterprise seeking the capital. It must be noted that for nationalised industries the real rate of return has for a number of years not exceeded nil per cent. There are many examples of public sector investment that have turned out to be disasters rather than shining successes. All these things have to be taken into account in deciding the realistic size and shape of a public sector investment programme.

Mr. Joel Barnett: In current economic circumstances, does the Chancellor accept that there is a case for allowing a higher PSBR to finance increased capital investment in the public sector?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the cases that can be made is the one made by the right hon. Gentleman. But again, it was universally acknowledged—it is widely acknowledged now—that any significant increase in the scale of public sector borrowing is likely to have an upward impact on the level of interest rates. If we are considering that, let us consider its effect on the prospects of investment for the private sector.

£ Sterling

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage movement of the £ sterling against a basket of currencies, and against the United States dollar, respectively, since the £ sterling reached its highest level against the dollar in the last 12 months; and what impact this movement is expected to have on the domestic inflation rate.

Mr. Lawson: The highest rate of sterling against the dollar in the past 12 months was 2·4565, reached on 4 November 1980. Since then, sterling has fallen against the dollar by around 20 per cent. and against a basket of currencies by about 7 per cent. The effective exchange rate is now roughly speaking back to where it was a year ago. Although these fluctuations in the exchange rate will have some temporary effect, in the long run, the domestic inflation rate is determined by the rate of growth of the money supply.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I shall study with care. Would my right hon. Friend agree that during the period 1979–80, when the exchange rate was rising fastest, so was our share of world exports and manufacture? In the light of the fact that our currency reserves are now at a record high level, would he agree that there might be no harm in encouraging the Governor of the Bank of England to show more enthusiasm for buying sterling, which would also help domestic credit expansion—just as he was enthusiastic to sell it in the past?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend exaggerates the enthusiasm of the Governor of the Bank of England. Whether the rate is rising or falling, the Government's policy is to leave the rate to be determined primarily by market forces. The Bank intervenes from time to time to smooth undue fluctuations and to preserve orderly markets, as it has been doing in the past few days.

Dr. McDonald: What is the right hon. Gentleman's view of today's market judgment on the pound?

Mr. Lawson: I watch it with interest.

Mr. Higgins: Will the Financial Secretary agree that if the repercussions of a fall in the exchange rate on the inflation rate are to be contained, it is vitally important that cash limits should be rigorously imposed? Is he aware that many of us view with concern the suggestion that Civil Service pay next year should be negotiated with no predetermined cash limits? Since the industrial action by the Civil Service is continuing despite that offer, will he withdraw it or arrange for it to be withdrawn if the strike does not cease before the end of the week?

Mr. Lawson: I am aware of my right hon. Friend's views. They are taken very seriously by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, since negotiations are under way at present between the Lord President of the Council and the Civil Service unions, I do not think that it would be helpful if I were to add much to that reply.

Mr. Shore: The House will have heard the Financial Secretary's response to a very important question. We know that he has expressed the view that the Bank's intervention is merely one of smoothing out the fluctuation in the exchange rate. I should like to press him a little further on that. Can he tell us whether it is the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is the duty of the Bank of England to intervene to sustain the exchange rate, as his hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. BruceGardyne) urged and argued a moment ago, or does he take the view that the loss of competitiveness that this country has suffered so grievously during the past two years is a strong argument for allowing corrective action to take place?

Mr. Lawson: I have never heard such a curious question. During the first half of the question, the principal economic spokesman for the Opposition was asking for the exchange rate to be held up. During the second half of his question he was asking for it to be pushed down. I suppose the conclusion must be that the Government's policy is just about right.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the buying value of the sterling has diminished since 1967.

Mr. Brittan: According to the general index of retail prices, the buying value of the £ sterling in April 1981 was about 21 per cent. of its value in 1967.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that outside this House last week the Secretary of State for Social Services announced that the present pathetic death grant of £30, which was fixed in 1967, will be increased? Will he draw his answer to the attention of his right hon. Friend and ask that the increase should be in the region of 79 per cent., to make sure that the backlog is met? Can he give an indication of when and how this is likely to be effected?

Mr. Brittan: These matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who will take such note as he thinks appropriate of the answer that I have just given to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. But in all matters of this kind one of the factors which have to be taken into account is not only what has happened to the value of the pound but how many pounds are available for the Exchequer to spend.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury say chat domestic inflation is primarily controlled by the money supply? Can he tell the House who or what determines the money supply and who or what controls it? Is it the same person or the same events?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend's questions go very much beyond the question on the Order Paper.

Interest Rates

Mr. Newens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present level of interest rates.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Minimum lending rate has been reduced by 5 per cent. since last summer to its present level of 12 per cent. United Kingdom short term interest rates are now among the lowest in the industrialised countries.

Mr. Newens: Yes, but do not international pressures, which are at present being manifested by a rise in British interest rates, demonstrate the tendency of monetarism, and competitive monetarist policies pursued by different States, to plunge our economy, which is already depressed, into further depression? Will the Chancellor now give a categoric assurance to the House that he will resist any pressure for a rise in interest rates, whatever may be the messages that he receives from Friedmanite oracles?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not my practice to make predictions about interest rate developments or to comment on speculation of any kind, and still less to give pledges of the kind urged upon me by the hon. Gentleman.


However, if we were to suffer the imposition of the £5 billion increase in borrowing that would follow from amendments moved by the Labour Party, and to suffer the £10 billion increase in the borrowing requirement urged by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, each of those things would be a prescription for soaring interest rates.

Mr. Adley: As interest rates are falling in this country while they rise in most of our industrial competitor countries, and as inflation is falling here while it is rising in most of our competitor countries, has my right hon. Friend any idea what it is about these facts that the Opposition find so objectionable?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot understand it and I share my hon. Friend's sense of mystification.

Mr. Jay: To be fair to the Chancellor, if the object of his policy has been to reduce production and investment and to increase unemployment and damage British industry, has not he been outstandingly successful?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman's question and his judgment of fairness do less than credit to him.

Pensions (Indexation)

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his reviews of public spending, he has made assessments of the savings from ceasing to index pensions in line with prices.

Mr. Brittan: In the course of their reviews of public spending, the Government naturally always assess the cost of all their policy commitments, including their clear undertaking to maintain, over the lifetime of this Parliament, the value of retirement pensions and those other long term benefits which are uprated in line with them.

Mr. Lamond: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall the speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the National Association of Pension Funds on 7 May when he took a very pessimistic view of the possibility of this Government or future Governments being able to accept their commitments to index-link pensions, particularly the earnings-related segment of retirement pensions?

Mr. Brittan: I recall the speech very well. My right hon. and learned Friend was saying that the burden placed by commitments of the kind I have described is a factor that those who think seriously about these matters should take into account. Over the last 10 years, social security benefits and pensions have increased in volume terms by over 60 per cent. while gross domestic product has risen by only 15 per cent. The result is that the proportion of the gross domestic product absorbed by those benefits and pensions has gone up from 10 per cent. to nearly 15 per cent. in that period. That is something that we, as a nation, have decided to do. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to point out the serious consequences of doing so.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My right hon. and learned Friend has been reported as calling upon the spending Departments to review the prospects of achieving a reduction of 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. in forward programmes for ensuing years. Can he assure the House that the Treasury intends to stick to this objective, which

is obviously essential if we are to achieve the scope for reductions in taxation in the concluding years of this Parliament?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that the extent of our ability to secure those reductions in taxation depends very much on what happens to public spending. No decisions have been taken in relation to this year's survey but the customary options exercise, which has happened for some years, is in train.

Mr. Straw: Why does the Chief Secretary now seek to play down what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the pensions conference on 7 May when the whole burden of his speech was to raise the most serious worries about the Government's commitment on the indexation of pensions? Will the Chief Secretary say whether his commitment to continue the indexation of retirement pensions for the life of this Parliament extends to the earnings-related supplement of the basic pension under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975?

Mr. Brittan: The extent of the commitment was set out at some length in a letter to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) which I shall draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention.

Derv (Revenue Yield)

Mr. Farr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the total revenue yield from the use of derv in the current financial year, taking into account increased usage.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: About £900 million.

Mr. Farr: As a diesel-engined vehicle is recognised as being a much more efficient converter of fuel, will my right hon. and learned Friend investigate a policy of reducing, or at any rate stabilising, the level of revenue that he receives from dery to stimulate increased usage?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is one factor to be taken into account. My hon. Friend will recollect that, in my first Budget, I removed the differential which at that time operated against derv and in favour of petrol.

Beer

Mr. Parry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning possible further increases in duty on beer.

Mr. Lawson: A small number of letters has been received. Most of the letters request no further increase in the beer duty.

Mr. Parry: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the price of a pint of beer has increased to a greater extent in the United Kingdom than in any EEC country, excluding the Republic of Ireland, over the last two years? The duty on a pint of beer has increased by 70 per cent. in the last two years. Does not he accept that he is pricing a pint of beer out of the reach of the working man's pocket—his only luxury under this Tory Government?

Mr. Lawson: The increase of 70 per cent. in the duty on beer over the first three Budgets of this Government needs to be put in perspective. In the first three spring Budgets of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) the beer duty was increased by 130 per cent. The


hon. Gentleman argues that the price of beer has been put beyond the working man's pocket. That can be disproved, I believe, by venturing into any public house in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman wants figures, the beer duty today, in real terms, is below the level at which it stood in 1976.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I declare an interest as non-executive chairman of Camra Real Ale Investments Ltd. Is my right hon. Friend aware that beer drinking is one of the great traditions of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that by imposing a disproportionately higher increase on beer than on wine in order to soak up the wine lake that has developed in Europe, for which the United Kingdom has no responsibility, many brewery workers are losing their jobs? As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) says, we are almost pricing beer out of the reach of the ordinary working man and woman in this country

Mr. Lawson: There is no evidence whatever that any jobs lost in the brewing industry over the past year have been the result of the increase in the duty on beer. There have been other reasons. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend also increased the duty on wines and spirits in the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 4 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This afternoon I shall be leaving for a visit to west Wiltshire and Bristol.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today considering the views expressed at yesterday's meeting of the National Economic Development Council by the TUC, the CBI, NEDO and the chairmen of the nationalised industries? When will her Government allow the nationalised industries to take advantage of all profitable investment opportunities?

The Prime Minister: If the nationalised industries were profitable they would find many investment opportunities. The real problem arises because the nationalised industries are not profitable. They do not get a good return on their resources. The vast majority, if they go to the market to borrow money, need a Government guarantee. Without that, they would be hopeless at getting the money.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the Prime Minister, in her discussions with Ministers today, consider the situation in the National Health Service whereby a woman registering the birth of a child is exempt from prescription charges, unless she is registering a stillborn birth in which case she loses her entitlement to exemption? Does not the Prime Minister agree that this anomaly should be put right?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that expectant mothers and mothers with children under the age of 1 are exempt from prescription charges but that the exemption does not apply

to the mother of a stillborn child. I shall certainly examine this situation. Without prejudice to the result I do so because I understand fully the traumatic experience that is involved for any family.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend recall the moans and groans of the TUC and the CB;[in November when the pound was at $2·42? Now that the pound has come back to $1·95, has she heard from the CBI and the TUC about the opportunities that this gives them to compete?

The Prime Minister: The answer to my hon. Friend is "No, Sir". When the pound is high, it means that imports of raw materials are low. When the pound is low, it means that we are competitive in exports.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Lady assist the House and the country by clearing up the apparent deep confusion, revealed on the front page ofThe Times, between the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the important question of negotiations, or possible negotiations, with the EEC? Does she agree with the apparent view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is little prospect of fundamental budgetary reform in the EEC? If so, does that not mean that Britain will remain the largest net contributor to the EEC for the foreseeable future and that the burden is likely to increase?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to clear up the confusion, and I do so immediately. Britain is not the largest net contributor to the EEC. Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EEC. We are the second largest net contributor—a long way down from the German net contribution. I am glad to be able to clear up that confusion. There is no disagreement between the Treasury and the Foreign Office. I am the First Lord of the Treasury, I do most of the negotiations with Europe and I am not disagreeing with myself.

Mr. Foot: I well understand the right hon. Lady's determination not to leave the negotiations to her colleagues. Can she tell us whether in these negotiations—if she is indeed in charge of them—she will carry out the resolution unanimously passed by the House of Commons in November 1979, and on other occasions, which underlines the House's view that this country should not be a net contributor, as she has arranged under her negotiations so far?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands. Negotiations are negotiations. The record shows that the Conservative Party and this Government have done a jolly sight better than his Government.

Mr. Foot: When will the right hon. Lady carry out the resolution unanimously passed by the House of Commons—a resolution for which she voted?

The Prime Minister: We have done about £700 million a year better than the party opposite. That is not a bad start.

Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend expect to have an opportunity today to join the Leader of the Opposition in sending good wishes for a speedy recovery to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that we would all wish to send a message to any right hon. or hon. Member of the House who is not well, and I do it to the "Bennth" degree.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Lady have the opportunity today to consider whether there is any logical necessity, for the purpose of eliminating inflation, to attempt to reduce the real remuneration of those who are in public, non-commercial employment?

The Prime Minister: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. In strict academic logic, disregarding the numbers in the public sector, disregarding the need for capital expenditure, disregarding the need for equipment expenditure, disregarding the levels of taxation and of interest rates, in strict academic logic, the right hon. Gentleman is right. In everything else he is wrong.

Mr. Parry: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Parry: Will the Prime Minister consider when she can pluck up courage to visit Liverpool to see the unemployment situation? She has not visited Liverpool since she became Prime Minister. Is she aware that my constituency has 40 per cent. unemployment? The right hon. Lady did not have the courtesy to meet a small delegation of young unemployed who marched from Liverpool to London. Are not the Prime Minister and the Tory Government hypocrites who are not concerned about unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, consider visiting Liverpool as one of the many visits that I make. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have tried to do everything possible to give greater help to Liverpool. There is an urban development corporation, an enterprise zone and a partnership agreement. It is a special development area. When Tate and Lyle closed recently, which I regarded as a tragedy, it gave a considerable grant to enable further development of small businesses. We have to encourage small businesses and the expansion of larger businesses, and to ask the most relevant question: why do so many people in this country reject the products of factories in this country?

Mr. Lyell: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to point out the beneficial effects which the wise policies of restraint on spending and borrowing are having on our current rates of interest? Will she take the opportunity to confirm that it is her intention that those interest rates shall continue to come down for the benefit of our manufacturers?

The Prime Minister: If there were tremendous demands for increasing public expenditure and those demands were to be met in any way, that would have a bad effect upon interest rates. So far, interest rates are down from 17 per cent. to 12 per cent. and that has been of great advantage both to agriculture and industry.

Mr. Cunliffe: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cunliffe: Does the right hon. Lady realise that the latest unemployment figures reflect a grave and fast deteriorating situation, which means more misery and distress for our people? Will she now consider, as the British people now demand, that she changes course, and

embarks on a massive programme of house building, road and railways construction and so on, to bring back confidence and hope to the nation? Will she ally with that the early retirement proposals that she mentioned in a recent letter to me? Will she accord to our people the right to work, because if she does not she will drag the nation deeper and deeper into a morass?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is asking for a substantial programme of increased capital expenditure. To many of us it would be very attractive, but unless it were financed from reduced current expenditure, it would put increasing burdens on public spending and on taxation—about which people are already complaining—and increasing burdens on interest rates. It would have exactly the opposite effect from that which the hon. Gentleman wishes. If there is to be extra public expenditure we need reduced current expenditure. Otherwise there will be a damaging effect on private sector business.

Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to arrange for the distribution to her Cabinet colleagues of an account of the budget planning and achievements of the American Administration, so that before the reported Cabinet discussions on the economy—should there be any need for them—her Cabinet colleagues may be convinced that public spending cuts are both possible and highly beneficial to the economy?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not conceal my envy of the way in which the President of the United States has been able to get proposals for public expenditure reductions through his parliament.

Mr. Palmer: I think that the right hon. Lady said that she was going to Bristol. Is that to console her supporters who did so badly in the Avon county council election?

The Prime Minister: I expect to have an interesting visit to Bristol. If the hon. Gentlemen does not wish me to go, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. John Farr: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 4 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Farr: In view of the strife and difficulty that have been caused by the Civil Service dispute and the fact that the economic situation has changed greatly since the original offer was made, and as there is a steady downward trend in the cost of living, will my right hon. Friend have a chance today to consider whether the offer to the Civil Service unions should now be withdrawn for reappraisal by Government sources?

The Prime Minister: The Government have made an offer to the Civil Service which they believe is fair—indeed, it is a great deal more than people in the private sector are receiving. The Government hope that the vast majority of people in the Civil Service will consider it fair, accept it and return to normal working.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Prime Minister reconsider her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) about a programme of public works? Does she recall that in the period between the wars President Roosevelt produced an imaginative scheme of public


works, including the Tennessee Valley Authority scheme? Will she explain why that cannot be done here? Is it because of her political philosophy or a change in economic conditions?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It is a change in the regular level of public spending. Even through boom periods the level of public spending in Britain has been a high proportion of the national income. That is totally contrary to Keynesianism.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House make a statement about the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JUNE—Report stage of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Health and Safety (Fees for Medical Examinations) Regulations.
TUESDAY 9 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Employment and Training Bill.
Third Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (Amendment) Order.
WEDNESDAY IO JUNE—Remaining stages of the Education Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY II JUNE—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the damaging effects of Government policy on the rights, status and opportunities of women.
FRIDAY I2 JUNE—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I5 JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the problems of the North-West.

Mr. Foot: When does the Leader of the House intend that we shall debate motions on the Order Paper about extra debates in the Scottish Grand Committee which was suggested in the inter-party report? I understand that agreement was reached in August 1980 and yet, because of the Government's neglect, a whole year of extra debates has been lost. Scottish Members, particularly Opposition Members, have strong feelings on the matter. Will the Leader of the House make a statement now, or at the earliest opportunity? Will the Government take steps to remedy the situation which they created?
We have had discussions about arranging debates on unemployment. The latest horrifying unemployment figures were published in the recess. Almost no time has been provided by the Government in this Parliament to discuss the matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider rearranging next week's business to provide in Government time a full day's debate on the unemployment figures? If he will not provide time next week—I hope that he will—will he guarantee that the House will have an opportunity for a full debate on unemployment, public investment and many of the matters which were raised in questions earlier today? May we have a debate on the subject in the House before the Government hold their meeting on 17 June when at last they will discuss these matters?

Mr. Pym: I regret that it has not been possible to provide time to debate the Scottish affairs motions to which a number of amendments have been tabled. I hope to be able to announce a time for debate soon—if not next week, the week after.
The Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends share the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the unemployed. It has not been possible for some time to provide a day for a debate in Government time. I cannot today undertake to provide time in the near future.

However, I certainly do not exclude the possibility of granting the right hon. Gentleman's request. I do not think that I can do it by 17 June, but I am mindful of the right hon. Gentleman's representations. I should like to arrange a day when we can find the time. I shall keep in mind the right hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Foot: On both counts the right hon. Gentleman's replies are unsatisfactory. We have lost time to debate Scottish affairs because of the Government's delay. Will the right hon. Gentleman make up lost time? The time lost because of the Government's delay should be made good.
The right hon. Gentleman's answer about a debate on unemployment is the same as that which he has given on numerous previous occasions. We are dealing with record unemployment figures month after month. Month after month the Government say that they will not arrange a debate in the House in Government time. That is unsatisfactory. The people have been demonstrating in the last few weeks how strongly the fury is rising in the country. The right hon. Gentleman should come up with something better. Since the Government themselves at last have decided that they must review their economic policy—and goodness knows that they should—the House should have the chance to speak before that discussion.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman exaggerates. The debate for which he asks is not relevant to a routine discussion of economic matters in the Cabinet. If the right hon. Gentleman felt so passionately about the subject he could have selected a Supply day. He is asking for Government time. My response to his request was sympathetic although it was not in the time scale that he required. In view of the time of the year and the legislation on hand, my response was reasonable. I am mindful of his representations.
I said specifically only a fortnight or three weeks ago that our decision in relation to the motion on Scottish affairs would apply from the next Session. Some hon. Members thought that that was not so, but that has always been in my mind. At the earliest possible moment—the week after next, I hope, or very soon afterwards—I want to provide time so that we can reach a conclusion. It is time that that was done, and I regret the delay.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. So that we can make reasonable progress, I hope that questions will be brief. We must remember the nature of the business later. There is also a statement to be made.

Mr. Michael Latham: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is immense public interest outside the House about Northern Ireland? Will he consider the suggestion that I put to him three weeks ago on an equivalent occasion that there should be a Government motion on the situation, referring in particular to the excellent work of the security forces?

Mr. Pym: I shall certainly keep that proposition in mind, but I cannot name a time at the moment.

Mr. Ben Ford: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will soon receive a letter from the Chairman of the all-party Committee requesting a debate in the House on the multi-fibre arrangement before 23 June when the Council of Ministers meets? Is he further aware that about 140 hon. Members have constituency


interests in the issue? Will he therefore undertake to consider sympathetically the request contained in the letter?

Mr. Pym: Of course I shall consider the letter when I receive it. It is not likely that I can provide a Government day, but I shall be sympathetic to the representations that I expect to receive.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend institute a debate on the growing level of racial violence in the country since that which is described in the press is only the tip of the iceberg—or does he think that it is better if we do not debate it?

Mr. Pym: I do not think that, but I hope that there will be some other opportunity when the subject can be raised.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) about the multi-fibre arrangement, does the Leader of the House recognise that 160,000 textile and clothing workers have lost their jobs in the last two years? Is he aware that 600,000 workers are still employed in the industries and that the negotiations are of the utmost importance to hundreds of communities throughout the country? Does he agree that it would be a tragedy if hon. Members were not able to express an opinion on the negotiations before the Council of Ministers considers them on behalf of Europe as a whole?

Mr. Pym: I shall consider the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman and take them fully into account.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the decision to debate the problems of the North-West. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that some Conservative Members warmly support the request of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) for a full debate about the renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement? Is he aware that 120,000 workers in the clothing and textile industry lost their jobs in 1980? As the hon. Member for Bradford, North pointed out, 140 hon. Members have an interest in that industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they should be able to register the views of their constituents and regions before the Council of Ministers meet? Is it not apparent that the Government and the European Commission are weakening in their resolve to have a strengthened MFA?

Mr. Pym: I shall take my hon. Friend's strong representations fully into account.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I endorse the appeal for a debate on the textile industry. Is the Leader of the House aware that I am alarmed at his statement that the Government are not likely to provide time for such a debate? Does he not realise from the strength of feeling expressed by textile representatives that the industry is alarmed at its decline? Is he aware that the textile and clothing industry is the largest single employer in the private enterprise sector? Does it not behove the Government to provide a day because the MFA is the most important governing arrangement for the textile and clothing industry? Should not the House debate that matter before a mandate is fully decided and before a decision is reached in Brussels?

Mr. Pym: The House is well aware of the limitation on the days available to the Government. The textile industry is important. It is the sort of subject that is suitable

for a Supply day. The Leader of the Opposition has made repeated requests for a Government day to debate another subject, which is equally suitable for a Supply day. He has made a strong request which I have taken on board. Unless the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) can find another method of raising the matter, it might have to be considered by his party for a Supply day debate.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us regret the fact that we do not often hear the Minister with responsibility for sport at the Dispatch Box? Will he arrange a debate so that we can listen to that excellent Minister and find out his views on the violence that accompanies many of our football supporters when they go overseas? Is he aware that that behaviour is seriously damaging Britain's image overseas? Is it not time that the House debated the matter?

Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will find an opportunity, either through an Adjournment debate or in some other way, to raise the topic in the House. I appreciate that, although my hon. Friend attends Question Time about once a month, it is not an adequate way to deal with the topic. I hope that he will find some method of raising it.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing public concern about the thousands of mentally handicapped adults and children living in unsuitable and degrading conditions? Is it not time that that scandal was ended and the expressions of concern about their plight expressed on the Floor of the House? Instead of sympathy and bromides, may we have an assurance that time will be provided for a debate?

Mr. Pym: I do not think that I can give such an assurance for next week. Obviously the subject is important, and I have no doubt that the right lion. Gentleman has already raised it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I undertake to raise it with him also.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the desperate position in Southampton and the need for a debate on the restructuring of our ports industry? Is he also aware that the port of Southampton is at a standstill and that eight major shipping lines intend to leave the port, due, in the main, to irresponsible members of the TGWU bringing the port to a standstill? Is it not time for a full debate on the national docks labour scheme and on the future of the ports in Britain? Without healthy ports we cannot have a healthy country.

Mr. Pym: That is another appropriate topic for debate, but I am afraid that I cannot find Government time for it.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the increasing problems of the arts, in all its aspects and in all areas of Britain, when will the House have the opportunity to debate the need for increased public expenditure on the arts in the current economic circumstances?

Mr. Pym: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Mr. John Farr: I wish to press my right hon. Friend about the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement. Is he aware that I signed the letter mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford)? Does he not realise how urgent and essential it is that the House should debate that matter so that the Minister can go to


Brussels armed with the view of the House before the negotiations begin on 23 June? Will he exercise himself a little more and give a more positive reply because it is an important matter?

Mr. Pym: I have had a number of requests pressed upon me for debates in Government time, including one on the textile industry generally and the multi-fibre arrangement. I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to see whether we can provide an opportunity for the House to debate the issue. However, I cannot make any promises. I appreciate the importance of the subject.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Leader of the House agree that the best way to arrange a debate on the consequences of the Government's economic and industrial policies would be to debate the problems of Merseyside, where unemployment in some areas—including my constituency—has reached 25 per cent? Is not that proof that the recession is not bottoming out? Is he aware that closures are still taking place, and that Dunlop has recently announced that it is to close? Is he further aware that the consequences of the Government's economic and industrial policies are writ large in Merseyside, and the devastation that has hit Merseyside will hit the remainder of Britain—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that if further questions are as long as that question I shall not be able to call all those Members who have been standing. We must bear in mind the other business yet to come.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) raised an appropriate and legitimate candidate for debate, but I do not think that Government time can be found for it.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: When my right hon. Friend has completed his arrangements for the Scottish Grand Committee, will he turn his attention to the Northern Ireland Committee, and especially the ability of that Committee to sit in Northern Ireland where representative institutions are labouring under a handicap?

Mr. Pym: I am prepared to consider that possibility.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not becoming almost scandalous that the Government are refusing to allow a debate on Northern Ireland in Government time? Is it not of some interest that Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, who for some years has been telling us that we should not touch the position in Northern Ireland but should leave matters as they are, has now clearly changed his mind?

Mr. Pym: I have not refused to have a debate on Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to the exchanges during the past quarter of an hour, he would appreciate that it would be impossible to meet all the requests that have been made. We want to use the time available to the best advantage and for the most pressing problems. There are many candidates for debate.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been two recent important reports on the affairs of the Central Electricity Generating Board—one from the Select Committee on

Energy and another from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Should we not have a debate soon on these matters?

Mr. Pym: A reply to the Select Committee report is still expected. When it is received, the subject and the report could be considered for debate in the House. I have not yet reached a conclusion on that point.

Mr. Greville Janner: Because of the medieval, archaic and often unjust system of coroners' courts, thrown into tragic relief by the Deptford fire inquiry, will the Leader of the House undertake to provide time for a debate on how the system can be replaced? If not, will he at the very least undertake to discuss the matter with the Home Secretary, whose anxieties have been greatly increased by the monstrous effects of a system that should have been abolished hundreds of years ago?

Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary already has that matter under consideration.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I appreciate that any spare time should be given to a debate on the problems of the West Yorkshire textile industry, but has the Minister seen early-day motion No. 431 on the Order Paper which calls upon the Home Secretary to conduct an independent inquiry into the investigations of the Ripper murders?
[That this House welcomes the acceptance by the Home Secretary of the need for an inquiry into the circumstances of the Yorkshire Ripper investigation but regrets that the inquiry will be conducted by a former police officer aided by other senior police officers; and calls on the Home Secretary to institute a fully-independent inquiry under section 32 of the Police Act 1964 which provides for power to summon and examine witnesses and a requirement to publish the findings and conclusions where publication is consistent with the public interest.]
In view of the great and real public concern about the methods adopted by the police in West Yorkshire in those investigations, will he find time for a debate on whether we may have a proper independent and preferably public inquiry into this very serious matter?

Mr. Pym: I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made public his view about that and that we had better await the outcome of that inquiry before considering whether it would be appropriate to take the matter any further in the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How are the negotiations between the usual channels developing on the arrangements of subjects for Monday's questions?

Mr. Pym: I cannot answer that without notice, but I believe that talks with the usual channels are continuing.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell:: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that youth unemployment is now sweeping the country, including my constituency of Southall, and is affecting many second generation young Asian people? Will he arrange a debate on unemployment in Government time, particularly if there is any prospect of the Government introducing unorthodox methods to occupy young people as is currently being presaged?

Mr. Pym: As the House knows, the Government have given much time and consideration to the question of youth unemployment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is still active in ministerial circles. Further


consideration is being given to what other devices and arrangements can be thought of to help the youth unemployed because we believe, as the hon. Gentleman does, that this is perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of unemployment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to statutory instruments Nos. 665 and 666 and the prayers against them which have been tabled for some time? As he has allowed London boroughs to wriggle out of their duties towards gipsies, if he cannot find time for a debate on the Floor of the House, will he at least find time for those prayers to be referred to a Committee upstairs?

Mr. Pym: I think that that is a matter which should be negotiated through the usual channels.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that I am probably the fourth hon. Member to raise the subject of Northern Ireland in business questions? Is he aware that the tempo of events in Northern Ireland, together with the increasingly large number of people in this country who now have a grip of the situation and want to know more about it, is such that we can no longer convey the message that if we shut up somehow or other this grave problem will go away, because it will not go away and we want to give more knowledge to our people? May we therefore have a full debate as soon as possible on the whole question of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Pym: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and interest about events in Northern Ireland, but it does not seem to me likely that there will be an opportunity to hold such a debate in the near future. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Gentleman that events in Northern Ireland are constantly in my mind, as they are in the minds of many hon. Members.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the real concern in

university constituencies such as mine, about the future financing of universities and the problems that have been caused because nobody seems to know exactly how the UGC grant will work? Will he provide time for a full-scale debate in the House, as this seems to be the only way in which the subject can be properly aired?

Mr. Pym: Important though I agree that the subject is, I cannot do so next week.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on two previous occasions recently I have raised with him the question of reallocating finances to the coal industry arising out of the Government's U-turn when the miners took strike action in relation to the threatened pit closures? When will the Government make a statement to the House about the way in which they intend to finance the coal industry in order to ensure that the stocks which are now approaching 40 million tons will be run down, to stop the massive imports of coal that are still taking place and to stave off the threatened pit closures that the Prime Minister and the entire Tory Government at that time said that they would stave off? Is it not high time that the Leader of the House made it clear when there will be a statement? Is he aware that on the last two occasions he promised to pass a message on to the Minister and that I am now beginning to wonder whether he is doing so?

Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is in discussion with the National Coal. Board and the National Union of Mineworkers about the 'hoard's finances and they are reviewing the future position now. Until that review is concluded, there cannot possibly be a statement in the House. I do not know the time scale. I do not think that a time scale is fixed, but the issue which concerns the hon. Gentleman is under active consideration by the three parties involved in the industry at this very moment.

Local Authority Expenditure (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on current expenditure by local authorities in Scotland. I have today notified the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities of my proposals which I shall discuss with it at our next meeting on 15 June.
It is a matter of extreme concern to me that in their budgets for 1981–82 local authorities in Scotland plan to spend about £180 million more than allowed for in the 1980 rate support grant settlement, at November 1980 prices, or 8·8 per cent. more in volume terms. Authorities have also made provision for higher pay and price increases than allowed for in the cash limits and have thus budgeted for a cash excess of £235 million above the amount in the RSG settlement. This is a totally unacceptable response to the Government's request for lower public expenditure in the interests not only of the national economy but also of ratepayers.
I propose a twofold response. First, I am asking all local authorities to undertake an immediate review of their budgets in order to reduce their spending to levels consistent with the Government's expenditure plans. Authorities are being asked to report to me by the end of July.
Secondly, should the Local Governmnent (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be enacted, I intend to take immediate action to reduce the rate support grant payable to certain local authorities which are planning to incur expenditure in 1981–82 which I am satisfied is excessive and unreasonable. The procedure, set out in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, requires me to report to the House on the circumstances of each case and to obtain the approval of the House to such grant reductions, after giving the opportunity to the local authorities concerned to make representations. In order that the local authorities which may be affected initially may have the maximum opportunity to consider their responses and to examine the scope for reductions in planned spending, preliminary notice has today been given to them of the assessments upon which I have based my provisional conclusions. I shall, of course, be prepared to consider reducing the assessments in the light of any representations I receive. This preliminary advance notice is my response to requests for early notice of my intentions. It does not rule out the possibility of later action against other authorities.
The extent to which I reduce rate support grant will depend upon the results of the revised budgets. If present spending plans were to remain unchanged, I consider that it would be appropriate to withhold £100 million. It will be my objective to secure as much as possible of this reduction by selective means but, as I have already warned the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, it may also be necessary to reduce grant generally if present budgets are not substantially reduced. This would be achieved by reducing the amount of grant which might otherwise have been paid at increase order stage. I must therefore ask all authorities to review their budgets for further savings to keep any general abatement of grant to the minimum necessary. Such general abatement should be significantly lower than would otherwise have been necessary provided that the selective powers sought in the Bill are granted to me, since this would enable me to concentrate the

necessary abatement upon those most responsible for the excess. This will be of benefit to the majority of local authorities in Scotland.
I now turn back to 1980–81. As hon. Members will recall, local authorities' original budgets for 1980–81 suggested a planned excess of £83 million, or 4·9 per cent. at November 1979 prices above the figure provided for in the 1979 rate support grant settlement. I called for revised budgets from all authorities and their response was that the outturn would be significantly less than the budgets. The provisional outturn figures for 1980–81 suggest that this did not happen and I have already expressed to the convention my deep concern about this situation. I shall consider further action when final figures are available in the autumn, but I am bound to make it clear now that it remains my intention to effect reductions in the rate support grant under my existing powers where I am satisfied that excessive and unreasonable expenditure has been incurred. If the final figures for outturn continue to disclose an unacceptable excess, I intend to effect grant reductions in the range of £40 million to £60 million. The higher figure will be appropriate if the excess of £83 million disclosed by the provisional returns is confirmed. I will give further consideration to the means of securing such a reduction and the possibility of part or all of it falling upon rate support grant for 1982–83.
In the more general context, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 2 June that the Government are considering further means to bring home to individual local authorities and their electorates the consequences of high-spending policies. I shall be considering with my colleagues the action, including legislation next Session, which may be required in Scotland. The Government must also consider the unfairness of the rating system. I shall undertake discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the consultation document, which, as my right hon. Friend said, we intend to issue in the autumn, which will deal with the alternatives to domestic rates.

Mr. Bruce Millan: This is a sorry day for Scottish local government. Is not the fundamental reason for the crisis in local authority finance the unrealistic expenditure figures set by the Government, the dishonest inflation figures written into the rate support grant settlement and the cuts in Government grant? The right hon. Gentleman set out on a collision course of bullying and intimidating local authorities in Scotland. That has poorer services and massive increases in rates, despite the right hon. Gentleman's hypocritical expression of concern for ratepayers in his statement. It has reduced relations between central Government and local government in Scotland to an all-time low and local democracy is threatened.
Are not the penalties set out in the statement proportionately much greater than those for England? For example, it will be £100 million in 1981–82 compared with only £450 million for England. Therefore, the penalty is proportionately much greater in Scotland despite all the right hon. Gentleman's propaganda about how generous and kindly he has been to Scottish local authorities compared with the actions of his colleagues south of the border.
How many jobs will be lost by these reductions in local authority expenditure? Why will the right hon. Gentleman not come clean and give us the details of the local


authorities involved? Is it not a fact that he has given preliminary notice to seven local authorities and that that information has been available since the forenoon in Scotland? Presumably that information has also been available to the press. However, the right hon. Gentleman has not had the courtesy to give the details to the House.
Why is Lothian on the right hon. Gentleman's hit list, for example, when the excess of expenditure in the Western Isles and in Orkney and Shetland is considerably greater than in the Lothian region? Shetland's expenditure, for example, is no less than 72 per cent. above the guidelines. Why is a local authority such as Dumbarton on the list of authorities to be penalised when many other local authorities such as Banff and Buchan, Moray—

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Nonsense.

Mr. Millan: —Caithness and Lochaber have exceeded the Government's guidelines by more than 30 per cent.;—

Mr. McQuarrie: Rubbish.

Mr. Millan: —including, for the benefit of the uninformed hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), Banff and Buchan at 38·2 per cent? Why are they not on the Government's hit list? Even within the context of the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is following, the list of authorities that have been singled out for preliminary penalties owes far less to fairness than to political spite and the operation of a vendetta.
We shall oppose these reductions, which are another example of central Government trying to blame Scottish local authorities for the shortcomings of their own policy, which has produced an economic crisis and record unemployment in Scotland. Central Government have failed to control their expenditure as effectively as the Scottish local authorities have controlled theirs. We shall oppose these penalties all the way along the line.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman, even by his own standards, is far off the beam. I shall try to answer as many of his questions as I can. I shall do so briefly. The authorities to which I sent letters yesterday to give them advance warning—I did so very much at the request of those concerned, who wished to know where they stood—

Mr. George Foulkes:: So do we.

Mr. Younger: I wrote to Dumbarton, East Lothian, Renfrew, Stirling, Cumnock and Doon Valley and Dundee.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the possible loss of jobs. He might care to reflect on how many jobs have already been lost by the excessive burden that is being imposed upon businesses, especially smaller businesses, as a result of the rating policies of some of the authorities that he supports. If he does not know about that, he should go to the districts surrounding Edinburgh. He will discover that many representatives of the districts will be delighted to speak to him.
The right hon. Gentleman alleges that the penalties will be greater in Scotland than in England. It is uncharacteristic that the right hon. Gentleman has his arithmetic entirely wrong. The cash overspend in England is £1,250 million. That is the figure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment used on Tuesday. The abatement in England is £450 million. The

cash overspend in Scotland is £235 million and the abatement is £100 million. There is a volume overspend of £180 million in Scotland compared with an abatement of £100 million. That seems to be in line with the overspend of £800 million in England and the £450 million abatement.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about a long-standing vendetta against local government and unrealistic figures. On every occasion that I have met local government representatives I have warned them in the most careful manner that the reduction would have to come and that the earlier they reduced their expenditure the easier it would be for them to do so. Many of them have done their best but some have deliberately not done so. They will have only themselves to blame if they now find it extremely difficult to achieve the Government's guidelines.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that the figures are unrealistic I wonder whether he is thinking about what he is saying. He might be interested to know that the Government's planned figure for 1981–82, which is what we are trying to get the local authorities to reduce their expenditure to, is higher than the actual expenditure that he approved in 1977–78 when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. If he thought that local authority services were decimated then, I do not recall him saying so. In 1980–81 and 1981–82 local authorities' estimated spending will be higher than the spending in the right hon. Gentleman's period of office. It will be 2 per cent higher in the first of those years and 1 per cent. higher for the second. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the figures are unrealistic he is condemning as unrealistic the figures that applied during his period of office. That exposes the nonsense that he has been talking.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am prepared to let questions continue on the statement until 25 minutes to 5 o'clock. That will provide a longer period for questions than I have allowed for questions following other rate support grant statements. If questions are brief, every questioner will be called. If they are not, it will not be possible to call all those who wish to question the Secretary of State.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Scottish local authorities are having a severe struggle to maintain essential services? At least those authorities were elected to maintain such services? That makes this cut by a Conservative Government totally unacceptable in Scotland, where they have no mandate.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities must have some independence in deciding their priorities? If they do not, the system will be in danger of collapse.

Mr. Younger: Local authorities have the power to decide their priorities. That is what local authority independence is all about. However, the right hon. Gentleman must agree that any Government of any complexion must have a right to determine overall expenditure and economic policy. If they do not have that right, the principle of Government falls.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have had to live under the extravagence and profligacy of regional authorities such as Lothian will welcome his statement? That will go for the ratepayers of the region. Will he


confirm that, under the legislation to which he refers, if the authorities behave responsibly his announcement should result in a considerable reduction in the regional rate in the current year?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. The hardship that many people in that part of Scotland face as a result of the rating policies being pursued has been brought forcibly to my attention. I confirm that the power that I seek—which I hope Parliament will shortly accept—will enable a local authority whose grant is removed to return the money to ratepayers in the form of a rate reduction.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State explain why Cumnock and Doon Valley is on his hit list when it is nowhere near the top of the list of local authorities that are above his guidelines and when it falls under average spending in Scotland by nearly £10 per head? On all the criteria, that authority should not be on his list. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is asking for a 20 per cent. cut in expenditure, which can be achieved only by substantial sackings in an area of high unemployment?

Mr. Younger: I am prepared to look carefully at any representations that that authority, or any other authority, may wish to put to me. It is not a question of looking purely at the guidelines to see whether they have been exceeded. Many other factors have to be taken into account. All the measures taken will have to be justified to the House. I shall seek to do that.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm what he said to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 6 April—that not only the guidelines but also the track record and expenditure of local authorities since 1978 would be taken into account? Is it not true that traditionally prudent authorities may experience changes from year to year and that they should not be penalised for one year? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that, if some local authorities greatly overspend, there will be less money for all local authorities and ratepayers will inevitably suffer?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is quite right. We take the widest possible spectrum of criteria into account when making a proposal to the House about any authority. He was also right to point out that each authority has an effect on other authorities if it overspends. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the measures that the Government wish to operate concentrate as much as possible on penalising overspenders and minimising the effect on those that are not the biggest overspenders.

Mr. Russell Johnston: When the Secretary of State said that there might be a possible general reduction in grant, did he mean that authorities that fell within the guidelines might still suffer? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned much-needed rate reform. Will there be a separate consultative document for Scotland? If so, why? Will there be legislation before the next election?

Mr. Younger: No decision has been taken about the details of the consultative document. I shall discuss with my right hon. Friends the question whether there will be one document or separate documents. As regards the hon. Gentleman's first point, from time to time when

Governments have abated local authority expenditure they have usually done so by a general abatement across the board, according to the formula. It has fallen unrealistically on some authorities, because the penalty exacted does not always fit the crime. It is not possible to recover all the money concerned selectively. However, the new scheme which the Government have introduced will be much fairer because a large proportion of the money—but not all of it—will be recovered selectively from the main offenders.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by most responsible Scottish local authorities, particularly the local authorities of Grampian, Banff and Buchan and Gordon in my constituency? Despite the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), Banff and Buchan did not increase the rates this year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when the Labour Government instituted similar measures after the IMF had been brought in, they received the support of Conservative-controlled councils? Are not the Government entitled to expect the same support from Labour-controlled councils to safeguard the interests of ratepayers in Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. Ratepayers in Scotland, particularly those in high-spending authorities, will be extremely relieved to hear the statement and the action that is being taken. I note with approval my hon. Friend's remarks about Banff and Buchan and other authorities in his area. As I have reminded the right hon. Member for Craigton before, he was lucky that Conservative-controlled local authorities were thoroughly prepared to help him in his task of reducing expenditure. The proof of that came in my first meeting with Lothian regional councillors, who were at pains to stress that their objection was not political and that they had had the same trouble with the right hon. Gentleman as they were having with me.

Mr. David Lambie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one in Ayrshire will be taken in by his proposal and that of the Secretary of State for the Environment that we should have another consultative document on the reform of the rating system, particularly so soon after the report of the Layfield committee? Is it not time that we scrapped the rating system and introduced a system of 100 per cent. Government grant? Will not the Secretary of State guarantee that Scotland will give the lead and that he will introduce a Bill in the next Session to scrap the rating system?

Mr. Younger: I am not nearly as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman about such matters. I do not wish to prejudice the contents of the consultative document, but a 100 per cent. grant from central Government to local government would effectively remove any democratic control. Therefore, it would be a somewhat dubious alternative.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Why does the Secretary of State refuse to accept that, generally, local government in Scotland has a far better record of controlling expenditure than the Government and that the crisis inflicted on local government in Scotland is due not to the irresponsible attitude of a few local


authorities but to the Government's failure to meet their mistaken targets? Why is the right hon. Gentleman taking 2½ years to come forward even with a Green Paper on local government finance reform, when, before the last election, his party was committed to the abolition of rates?

Mr. Younger: I wish that Scottish local authorities had a better record than others of saving local government expenditure. However, a prospective overspend of £180 million does not strike me as a good record. It would put Scottish local authorities even above the planned expenditure levels that the right hon. Member for Craigton left behind, which everyone knows we cannot afford. As regards the Green Paper, it is extremely difficult to talk about replacement of the domestic rating system. At least the Government are committed to trying to do something about it. We shall produce a consultative document in the autumn.

Mr. Peter Fraser: As ratepayers in the city of Dundee have had to face rate increases of 150 per cent., may I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will be warmly welcomed? Will he take time now to explain to those ratepayers that, coupled with the powers that he will have under the new Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, the proposed reduction in rate support grant—about £2·75 million—will mean that, if the local authority is responsible, they will enjoy a reduction of about 5p in the pound in their rates? As ratepayers are hard pressed, that will be welcome to them.

Mr. Younger: I agree that some hard-pressed ratepayers will be anxiously awaiting the councils' decisions. We have borne the ratepayers in mind in the powers that I am asking Parliament for. For the first time we are giving a council that loses grant the opportunity to return the money to its ratepayers. I should have thought that councils would be anxious to do that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the right hon. Gentleman talk about a reduction of democratic choice in local government if the rating system is abolished, when all his actions since taking office have had that effect? What further steps can he take to destroy local government initiative apart from those that he is now taking? Will he come clean, be honest and say that he wants to abolish local government entirely and to run it from New St Andrew's house?

Mr. Younger: That proposition would hold some water if it was new for a Government to try to reduce local government expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has a long enough memory to know that his right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton and his predecessor, Lord Ross, spent a great deal of time trying to do the same thing with local government. When the hon. Gentleman was at the Scottish Office, he probably took part in the exercise as well. When local government goes against the trends of a Government's economic policy, any responsible Secretary of State will try to get local government expenditure to correspond to national economic priorities. There is no alternative.

Mr. Ian Lang: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the steps he has announced, which will be warmly welcomed by many thousands of aggrieved ratepayers, have been made necessary only by the stunning insensivity of some local authorities? Will he confirm that

he will not hesitate to intervene with those local authorities which seem to regard high rates as either some kind of virility symbol or as a political weapon against the Government?

Mr. Younger: It seems that some people in local government in Scotland think they can hit their ratepayers time and time again and have no consequences from it. It is my duty to try to do something to protect the ratepayers from this sort of attack.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the Secretary of State answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) about the number of jobs which may be lost as a result of the action he intends to take against local authorities? Will he also tell us what the cost will be to the Exchequer in terms of unemployment benefit and other social security payments as a result of the redundances which will occur because of his actions?

Mr. Younger: Everyone in local and central Government and, indeed, in private industry would much rather that they never had to put anyone out of work if they could avoid it. If only local authorities had started early enough they would have been able to make the necessary savings without any redundancies, as I have done in the Scottish Office, where we have reduced staff by over 600, without redundancies. If one starts early enough one can do this without redundancies. That is what I have been pressing local government to do for two years.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially on behalf of those of my constituents who are unfortunate enough to be ratepayers suffering under the socialist yoke of the wild men of Renfrew. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the outrage in my constituency at the contrast between the 12½ per cent. rate increase in Eastwood and the 60 per cent. rate increase in Renfrew, with all that that means for jobs in an area of high unemployment?

Mr. Younger: I am conscious that a large number of local authorities in Scotland, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend, have tried hard to do the difficult business of cutting their expenditure back in accordance with the priorities we have suggested. I pay tribute to those authorities. It is sad that they should, to some small degree at any rate, suffer for the sins of others which are deliberately doing the opposite and putting their ratepayers in danger as a result.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State clarify his statement in relation to the proportion of penalties between England and Scotland? On a rough calculation the English penalty as a proportion of excess expenditure is 36 per cent. while the Scottish penalty on the same basis is 43 per cent. Will he come clean on these statistics? Will he also acknowledge that the tendency of his Government is to pollute the relationship between central Government and local government because his Government have used only one instrument of economic policy--namely, monetarism? They have failed completely to use all the other instruments of economic policy. In a recession, local authorities should be spending more—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to his colleagues.

Mr. Younger: On the first point there is no mystery about the figures. The planned volume overspend in Scotland is £180 million, which is considerably higher proportionally than the corresponding figure in England. The abatement of £100 million is absolutely in line with the relative figures in England, which are £800 million volume overspend and £400 million abatement. I challenge anyone to put that in any other way. On the hon. Gentleman's point about polluting the relationship between central Government and local government, there is nothing new in central Government trying to persuade local government to be economical. I could have avoided all this simply by allowing local government to go on spending with the sky as the limit while everyone else suffered difficulties of the economic recession. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is wise enough to know that that would be nonsense. Nobody could have expected me to do that, and I have not.

Mr. Bill Walker: My constituents in the Dundee district will welcome the statement because of the effect it will have on their rates. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the actions of that authority have done little to bring jobs to that area? Does he also agree that the reactionary forces at work in some local authorities in Scotland are the same forces which are giving trouble to the Labour Party internally?

Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend says about the conduct of Dundee district. I will be putting a case to the House in due course and I do not want to go further into its activities. What that authority and others should bear carefully in mind is that, when they overspend, it is not a question of producing figures that annoy the Secretary of State; it is a deliberate imposition on the ratepayers, many of whom are businesses employing people in the areas. There is no doubt in anyone's mind in some of these areas that the high rate increases are already destroying jobs. It is that which is a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Party because, if they do not watch it, they will be supporting the people who are destroying jobs in all those areas.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is clear that I shall be able to call the four hon. Members who have been getting up.

Mr. Norman Buchan: When he says there are other considerations besides the specifically numerical, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that this may be an excuse for letting off Tory areas and clobbering Labour areas but makes no sense economically? For example, Renfrew, my district, is to have the highest cut of any district council—£3·8 million—at a time when it has two major problems which it has been dealing with. One is Linwood, with 40 per cent. unemployment. To bring about further economic inflation in an area with the highest unemployment of any urban community in Britain is an economic absurdity. That is allied to the kind of democratic nonsense to which the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's programme adds.

Mr. Younger: The whole question of how authorities are selected for penalties has to be done under statutes laid down by the House. Incidentally, the procedure was laid down by a Labour Government.[Interruption.] If I may beg the pardon of the Peter O'Sullivan of this House, who seems to make a continual commentary, the fact is that the

hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was a member of the Labour Government which introduced the measure and he had better live with it. On the other point made by the hon. Member, I appreciate that Renfrew district has problems, but so do many other parts of Scotland. I am glad to listen to representations from them, as I will do if an order is put down. They might like to reflect upon the fact that if they are trying to attract replacement industry for Linwood high rates are not likely to be a good way of doing so.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement can only add to the difficulties which he has already created for the ratepayers of Lothian region through his cuts in rate support grant? Will he accept that the first casualty in Lothian region is likely to be £10 million of capital expenditure, which will be catastrophic for building contractors? Is he aware that this will lead directly to about 5,000 redundancies—an employment disaster comparable with that at Linwood? What mandate have the Government to implement these policies in Scotland?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman tries hard but I do not think many people in Lothian region will blame anyone but the regional council for the rates they have to pay. In regard to what he says about the first casualties, I have news for him. The first casualties have already happened. They are the people who found their rate increases this year intolerable and impossible to bear. That was the result of the Labour Party's excessive spending policies, which the hon. Gentleman supported.

Mr. Ernie Ross: When the Minister is looking at Dundee district authority's rate levels and excessive regional expenditure, as he sees it, will he accept that his formula takes no account of the deliberately artificially held down rate levels which were a desperate election gimmick of a Tory local authority, which did not work and which did not reflect the services being provided by that authority? Will he accept that the rate levels now reflect the services required in that area? May I say that the threat that this poses to 500 jobs in Dundee will not be welcomed by those who will suffer if the axe falls on that authority?

Mr. Younger: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be ready to listen to any representations which Dundee wishes to make to me on the subject if an order is put down. I promise that I will do that carefully. He has made the point himself and it is a simple one—Tory authorities try to reduce rates and Labour authorities try to put them up.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State admit that his statement amounts to further Tory Government pressure for increased rents, increased rates and decreases in essential services such as housing, social work and education? Why is the Secretary of State so hell-bent on taking revenge against council house tenants and other ratepayers in the Stirling district who voted to return Labour councillors and who therefore have a better mandate to represent the interests of their people than has a discredited Tory Secretary of State who represents only a dwindling minority of the people of Scotland and is now behaving like a jack-booted commissar by kicking local democracy in the teeth?

Mr. Younger: I have a great advantage in this matter because I am one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I read his election address and that of the district council with great care, but nowhere did they state in advance to the electors that they proposed a 150 per cent. rate increase. If they had done, there might have been a very different result.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Ordered,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Yugoslav Agreements) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Le Marchcnt.]

Orders of the Day — British Nationality Bill

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Schedule 4

AMENDMENTS OF IMMIGRATION ACT 1971

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 51, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 9 and insert—
'(a) in subsection (1)—
(i)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 45.

Mr. Raison: These amendments are simply to correct minor errors which have crept into the layout of the changes made in the schedule to section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971. They do not change the substance of the alerations in any way, but merely put the definition of a United Kingdom passport in the correct place in the list of definitions in section 33(1) of the 1971 Act and ensure that paragraph 7 of schedule 4 refers specifically to section 33(1).

Amendment ageed to.

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 51, line 11, leave out '(c)' and insert—
'(ii) after the definition of "ship" insert—
"United Kingdom passport" means a current passport issued by the Secretary of State;"; and
(b) '. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 38

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS IN COUNCIL

Mr. John Tilley: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 29, line 42, at end insert—
'except regulations concerning fees for any application made to the Secretary of State under this Act, which shall be subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons'.
We want to make sure that two British Nationality Bills are not being put forward—one nationality law for the rich and one for the poor. We have argued whether the granting of nationality by the various means contained in the Bill is a right, a privilege or a gift. Whichever it is, we believe that no individual should be precluded from obtaining British citizenship by any form of grant merely because his income is insufficient to enable him to pay the fee the Government charge for the grant of citizenship.
That argument is particularly strong if it is believed, as the Opposition believe, that the grant of British citizenship, registration and naturalisation under the law is a right that people should be able to claim if they fulfil the qualifications. Even if, as Tory Members have suggested, it is a privilege granted by the State to those

whom the State feels should be included among British citizens, we believe that it is not a privilege which only those already financially privileged can enjoy. It should be a privilege, if the State decides to grant that privilege to those who are qualified, that can be taken up by all sections of the community.
The current cost of obtaining citizenship by grant is £50 for registration. That is the automatic and quicker means of obtaining nationality through a direct entitlement under the Bill and under existing law. For naturalisation the fee is £150. Naturalisation is a longer process in which applications can be turned down if the qualifications of good character, language ability and residence are not fulfilled. Last year that figure was increased from £90.
We believe that if the Government want to increase the fees they should bring to the House any proposals for doing so and that the increases should be subject to approval by resolution of the House. We are concerned that the naturalisation fee of £150 will be unduly increased over the next few years, thereby creating undue hardship to the people involved. A large number of people who could have obtained the cheaper form of citizenship by the grant of registration for £50 will be switched by the Bill to obtaining citizenship by naturalisation. That will be the only means by which they can obtain citizenship and the cost is already three times as much as for registration.
The people affected are the foreign wives of British citizens who at present qualify for registration and therefore would have to pay only £50, and that proportion of the 500,000 citizens of independent Commonwealth countries living here who have not yet out British citizenship. At present many of them qualify for citizenship by registration—the £50 model. After the grace period tney will have to go through the naturalisation process. Most of those people are black and most are from the lower income levels.
Many of my constituents are Commonwealth citizens who have this entitlement, and I speak from experience when I say that many Commonwealth citizens have not taken up their right to registration because they find it difficult to pay the current cost of £50. If they have to pay £150, they will be even less likely when the Bill becomes law to take what we regard as their entitlement.
The grace period is five years after commencement, and we believe that commencement might be January 1983. That is a long time ahead and what is now a fee of £150, if the increases of the last few years are repeated, will be a great deal more. For those people the British Nationality Bill is precisely what it says—a bill for at least another £100 if they want to become citizens and another £200 if they want to acquire citizenship once the grace period has expired.
There is a strong probability that the current levels of £50 and £150 will be radically increased in the near future. I have ascertained by asking a parliamentary question that the cost of naturalisation is thought to be £204. Last year there was a substantial increase in cost. We know that the cost of the process is thought to be £204 per application, and we are somewhat surprised that no announcement of an increase was made on 1 April. There have been some reports that the nationality division of the Home Office has prepared proposals on the levels of fees and that Ministers decided that they had better keep quiet about them and not introduce or make them public before the Bill was safely brought to the House.
I regret that if it is true. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is true and whether the Government have decided to delay announcing increases in fees because they wanted to take the Bill through the two Houses, presumably because they realised that, whatever case there was against the £150 fee, it would be strengthened if they proposed to increase the fee to £250 or more. I hope that the Minister will tell us why there was no announcement of an increase in fees from 1 April and whether there will be an announcement in the near future.
From what the Minister said in Committee, we know that the Government are committed to trying to break even in terms of costs of acquiring nationality. We disagree with that fundamentally. Because nationality is a right or a privilege, whichever way one looks at it, we feel that it should be available to people, irrespective of their income. We regret that on such a fundamental constitutional issue as the right of British men and women to call themselves British the Government have brought to this subject their grocery shop mentality of trying to balance the books which they have brought to many areas of public life.
Therefore, we expect there to be an announcement of increases. We are trying to ensure that at least the House will be able to consider them in detail. We hope that we shall be able to express the outrage which will arise from many sections of the community so that we can force the Government not to put through the increases.
Let us consider how far those increases will create hardship. Except in rare cases, people do not acquire citizenship more than once in their lifetime. It is not a continuing cost but a one-off cost. I take a family of four as an example. There may be many families of four—father, mother and two children over 18—who want to acquire citizenship by grant under the Act. It will cost them £600, even at the present fees. We know that those fees will increase. That is an enormous amount for almost any family to find in order to obtain either its right or privilege—it does not matter which—to become British citizens.
The cost will also be high for single people who are unemployed or on social security. I emphasise that the Department of Health and Social Security does not regard the acquisition of nationality as something for which exceptional needs payments can be made. For unemployed single people, low wage earners and those on social security, it will be difficult to find £150.
One of the most surprising things which emerged in Committee was that for the citizenship of the dependent territories in our remaining 17 colonies the cost of acquiring nationality by grant is at roughly the same level—expressed in terms of the local currency—as it is in this country. In every one of those territories the average income is lower than it is here. In some it is much lower—for example, in the poorer Caribbean islands which are still dependent territories, Hong Kong and, to a lesser extent, the Falklands and Gibraltar. Even so, in all those territories the average income is much lower than it is in the United Kingdom, yet the cost of acquiring citizenship is the same at the moment and should remain the same in the future, as far as the Government are concerned. That means that acquisition of citizenship of the dependent territories is already a dead letter in the Bill because few people will be able to afford to take up the rights which the Government purport to be giving to people in those territories.
4.45 pm
Our main concern is the effect of those fees on people in this country. I shall try to answer the obvious question which may come in a few moments from the Minister, which rightly came from Ministers in Committee: what do we think the level of fees should be? It is possible to start by saying that, as we believe it is a right, people should obtain their citizenship free of charge and that, therefore, there should be a nil cost. However, we do not push the argument that far simply because we believe that a fee of some sort serves to underline the seriousness of the act of acquiring citizenship. That precludes the possibility that some people might treat it trivially if they felt that they merely had to write in for it and would receive it automatically.
Secondly, there is a possibility of a comparison with overseas. One argument is that in the United States the fee is only $5 and in Canada it is only $25. In view of the way in which the pound is moving at the moment, I would not try to specify exactly how big a fistful of dollars £150 would be if translated into those currencies. America and Canada welcome new members and are proud of their role as a melting pot. The acquisition of nationality is important there. However, I shall not press that argument too strongly as we discovered in Committee that international comparisons with regard to nationality are often odious and that we must consider our own circumstances.
Another idea which was suggested was that the level of fees should be means-tested. An amendment to that effect was moved and discussed in Committee. We are sceptical about that on the principle that we do not like means testing. We want benefits to be universally available. The idea of the Home Office nationality division conducting a detailed means test of applicants may be attractive to connoisseurs of great bureaucratic snarl-ups, but we suspect that the cost saved would be more than lost by the extra staff needed by the ombudsman to cope with the complaints about the way in which those tests had been carried out.
We came to the conclusion which is contained in an amendment which has not been called, amendment No.46, which says that, given the two levels at present—that is £50 for registration, which is the cheaper way, and £1 50 for naturalisation, which is more expensive—we should peg the cost at the cheaper level and if it is to be increased it should be increased annually only at the same amount by which the retail price index had risen. In other words, the cost should rise only in parallel with the cost of living.
Therefore, the cost of registration should stay as it is now but the cost of naturalisation should come down so that there is one fee for obtaining citizenship by grant. After all, the Government said in the White Paper that they wanted to bring into conformity the two ways of obtaining citizenship by grant. We suggest that that falls in with that principle. We realise that they may also suggest that both should be £150 on the ground that that would also introduce conformity. However, given the choice we believe that at least in this case we should level down rather than level up.
We do not like index linking in general terms. but it is the only way in which Parliament today can determine the real cost of acquiring citizenship in the future. Of course, if the Government manage to achieve a minus rate of


inflation, we shall be willing to reconsider the application of the amendment and perhaps we would not insist on them cutting. However, that is a hypothetical consideration.
We want British nationality to be open to all those who qualify for it. But we do not want it to be open like the Savoy is open to all, as the lawyers phrase goes open only at a price. As the price now stands—we suspect that the Government intend to raise it to balance the books—the majority of people who will qualify will be unable to afford it. Our fear is not that there will be one nationality law for the rich and another for the poor but that if the amendment is not carried there will be no nationality law in terms of acquisition of British citizenship for poor and middle income people both here and in the colonies.
I ask the House to support amendment No. 47 so that we shall have a chance to consider and debate any future attempts by the Government to force even higher what we regard as an already high cost of acquiring nationality under the Bill.

Mr. Edward Lyons: This matter was discussed fairly extensively in Committee, but certain matters are worth repeating. I have been told by East Europeans living in my constituency that the fee for naturalisation is too high and that it is an obstacle. That was said to me as recently as last Saturday night in a Latvian club in Bradford. It was also said to me in the Polish Ex-Combatants Club.
The Poles who served in the Polish army fought on the same side as Britain during the war. Their children have been born and brought up here. There is no question of them returning elsewhere. They have a major interest in the future of Britain, not only the Poles in Bradford but also Poles in other parts of the country. In a low wage area such as West Yorkshire, they find that a naturalisation fee of £150 is too high.
I have no doubt that some members of the Asian community are in a similar position. Accordingly, if we are to avoid inhibiting those whose allegiance is to Britain from applying for citizenship because of financial considerations, it is important that the Government ensure that the financial charge for doing so is not too great.
The Social Democratic Party has tabled an amendment which tries to peg the amount to £50 for the next three years. That is designed particularly to cope with the huge influx of applications that has resulted from the Bill's passage through the House, so that those who have been stampeded into applying earlier than otherwise, and whose financial situation may not be comfortable, should not suffer through having to pay a fee of £150 or more.
I ask the Government to think again. It is wrong that loyalty to this country should depend on an individual's financial circumstances. The poor man can feel as loyal, and sometimes more loyal, than the rich man. He should not be prevented by a fee from making his application for citizenship.
As I suspect that the fee will present a problem for East Europeans and others, it would be helpful if the Government thought about the matter again.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not wish to refer to the amount of the fee, which is a matter not directly raised by the amendment. This is one of those regulations which it would be proper for the House to require should be subject to affirmative resolution.
I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will be able to produce a list of precedents as long as his arm for regulations under the negative procedure by which fees for various purposes are prescribed. However, I do not think there is any doubt about the importance of the quantum of this fee. Therefore, the matter ought not to be regulated by the lowest common denominator or whatever the precedents are.
The basic principle is that a fee is a charge upon the subject. It is true that he incurs it only if he undertakes certain processes which are open to him under the law. Nevertheless, it is a financial imposition upon the subject, and the basic principle is that such financial impositions should be made by the affirmative and specific will and decision of the House.
That proposition is of more force nowadays than it used to be as we live in an era in which the negative procedure is virtually nugatory. Of course, when it is a great matter the usual channels will no doubt arrange to lay on a debate on the subject, even if it is dealt with by negative resolution. But those who are particularly interested in this matter and feel strongly about it will have an additional hurdle to clear. They will have to persuade their reluctant colleagues—as well as overcoming the reluctance of Government business managers—that this is a matter of exceptional importance.
I do not think that that onus should be placed on those people. There are no great terrors in the affirmative procedure. It means an hour-and-a-half of Government time, generally at an untimely hour. If the Whips must keep a House for that purpose, that is commensurate with the significance of a fee being charged in the context in which it is being imposed here.
As a Northern Ireland Member, alas used to legislation by affirmation of Orders in Council, I can say that the affirmative procedure holds no terrors. The Home Secretary would be conforming with the general principle underlying these matters if he made a concession and agreed that the affirmative resolution should govern the fixing and alteration of the scale of fees. I hope that he will be generous enough to do that.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I reject the special pleading implicit in the amendment. British citizenship is like a precious jewel beyond compare, and people who, under this law, will be entitled to apply for it are lucky to be in such a position. Therefore, it is impossible to set a sufficient price upon a privilege such as this, and it follows that any economic price that is set must dictate the actual fee charged. If people who are able to apply for British citizenship cannot make the financial sacrifice necessary to obtain naturalisation, they are not likely to be good citizens and we do not need them.

5 pm

Mr. Thomas Cox: The speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was typical of the comments that so annoy our people, irrespective of where they come from. The sooner the Government reject those sort of comments the sooner we shall achieve the kind of community relationships that the Home Secretary, to his credit, is always talking about.
It is essential to outline the problems that the present fees cause to many people. I have a large Asian community in my constituency. The Asians are decent, honest, hard-working people who, after living here, regard


the achievement of British citizenship as their greatest aim. We are repeatedly told that these people must play an active role in the communities in which they live. The paramount achievement in their lives is becoming naturalised citizens of the country which is now their home. However, that presents real problems.
Many hon. Members will have families living in their constituencies consisting of four, five or six members. There will be a mother, a father and the rest of the family, and, because they have the right to seek British nationality, they will do so. The costs will involve several hundred pounds. The hon. Member for Orpington said that people could find that money if they regarded the priority of British nationality in such high esteem. It is their right, if they meet the qualifications after living in this country, to seek British nationality. However, the cost presents enormous problems to many families.
The Asian community is the one that I know best. In many different parts of the country the Asian community does essential work in our society. Many of the jobs involved are not well paid. We are considering the present cost of nationality registration at £150. We have no assurance that in a year or two that figure will not go up considerably. All Government documents such as passports, death certificates or registrations of births of children have increased in price. Will the Home Secretary or the Minister of State give us a firm assurance that there will not be an increase in the cost of nationality registration? If the cost continues to increase, as it has in recent years, that will present even more problems to communities who wish to achieve British nationality.
I ask the Home Secretary to look closely at this matter. It is no good telling these communities that they must be a part of the society in which they live and then place burdens on them when they seek to obtain British nationality which so many so much wish to do.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have taken part in many debates concerned with affirmative and negative resolutions dating back to 1962. I am no stranger to such debates. Equally, I am no stranger to debates where discussion tend to move into discussion of what the resolutions would be about—in this case the fees—and is not directed to the amendment which is concerned with the affirmative or the negative resolution. Those are the terms of the amendment and I shall address myself to that conclusively.
I appreciate that the Opposition wanted to discuss the other amendment concernig the level of the fees. I shall answer some of the points of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) before turning to the substantive part of the amendment which is whether such increases or changes should be subject to the affirmative or negative resolution procedure.
It has been made clear by my hon. Friend in Committee that it is Government policy to recover as far as possible through fees the administrative costs of nationality applications. As the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central appreciates, we are a long way from achieving that objective. The current percentage of our costs recovered through fees is nearer 30 per cent. than 100 per cent. I am afraid that further increases in fees are inevitable in due course.
However, I cannot be blamed from two different positions at the same time—from one, yes, but not from

both. I cannot be blamed for not having put up the lees or announced an increase in fees on the one hand and at the same time be blamed for not taking sufficient account of the problems that the size of fees creates for communities. It is because I appreciate the problems that I have not announced the increase in fees which, from the figures, make it inevitable that I shall have to announce. What I have done, and properly should do, is to look at all the costs that occur in the nationality division to consider where we can keep costs down. I try, to the best of my ability, to keep the costs and fees down. That is part of my job.
I was fascinated to hear that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central contemplates, if ever he were in that position in a Government, going to the Treasury to tell it that fees should be reduced. I find it difficult to imagine that any Treasury would concede that proposition. However, I do not think that he will have the chance and I shall not have the opportunity of seeing what would happen. It would be difficult to contemplate.
There will have to be an increase in fees. I undertake to see what I can do to keep costs down. I cannot give an undertaking about when I shall announce such an increase, but I shall look most carefully at the proposals and at our costs because I realise the important point made by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox).
At the same time, I take the view that while one must seek to keep the costs down as much as possible, the question will arise of when it is reasonable to ask people to pay a considerably larger percentage of the costs than they do now for acquiring British citizenship.
In answer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I go somewhat further than usual with the usual precedents. I expect that he already appreciates that under the British Nationality Act 1948 the level of fees for applications are not subject to parliamentary procedure. In moving to the negative resolution we are advancing from what has been the practice with fees in the British Nationality Act 1948. I realise that the situation is different, but the advance is there and I am entitled to obtain the credit for that advance.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Thus we shall have an affirmative resolution in approximately 2013.

Mr. Whitelaw: If the right hon. Gentleman and I are here to see that we shall receive the credit for it. Even if we are here I do not think we should be able to recognise that it had happened.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central said that unless his amendment was accepted there would 13e no opportunity to debate the level of fees. I do not think that he can have meant to put it quite in that way, because that is incorrect. Under the negative resolution procedure there would, of course, be an opportunity for the usual debate.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South will appreciate, I have had some part in arranging the business of the House, from an Opposition and from a Government point of view, during my career. Where prayers have been wanted by the official Opposition or by a body of hon. Members on some important matter, the opportunity has in most cases been granted and the debate has taken place. I suggest, therefore, that in moving from nothing to the negative resolution procedure we have made a significant advance.
I do not believe that the House should always move to an affirmative resolution procedure, which would add very considerably—if the procedure is used on every occasion—to the amount of business in the House. I believe that we have made the right judgment and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Tilley: The Home Secretary has not allayed any of the fears that I mentioned. Indeed, he has confirmed some of the suspicions that the fees will be increased substantially fairly soon. That in itself will lead many people to want to make their applications quickly, before the fees are increased. If he cannot promise not to increase the fees, perhaps he will promise to make an effort to ensure that sufficient application forms are available. There is already a terrific rush for application forms as a result of the Bill, as could have been foreseen. It would be unfortunate if, because forms were not available, people had to apply many months from now, when the fees had increased.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment and to register our desire that the affirmative resolution procedure should operate in the future, and our concern about the level of fees, which, as the Home Secretary has admitted, will be raised very soon.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 264.

Division No. 200]
[5.12 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Adams, Allen
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Allaun, Frank
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Anderson, Donald
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Deakins, Eric


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dempsey, James


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dixon, Donald


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dormand, Jack


Beith, A. J.
Douglas, Dick


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Dubs, Alfred


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunn, James A.


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
English, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Evans, John (Newton)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Ewing, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ford, Ben


Cartwright, John
Forrester, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Foster, Derek


Coleman, Donald
Foulkes, George


Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cook, Robin F.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cowans, Harry
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Craigen, J. M.
George, Bruce


Crawshaw, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Crowther, J. S.
Ginsburg, David


Cryer, Bob
Golding, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Graham, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Dalyell, Tam
Grant, John (Islington C)





Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Race, Reg


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Radice, Giles


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Richardson, Jo


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Homewood, William
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howells, Geraint
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roper, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sever, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ronald
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


McElhone, Frank
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McTaggart, Robert
Tilley, John


Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Torney, Tom


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Maxton, John
Watkins, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


Meacher, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
White, Frank R.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Whitlock, William


Molyneaux, James
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Morton, George
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Winnick, David


Newens, Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Woolmer, Kenneth


O'Halloran, Michael
Wright, Sheila


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Palmer, Arthur
Tellers for the Ayes:


Parker, John
Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. Frank Haynes


Parry, Robert





NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Arnold, Tom
Best, Keith


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Biffen, Rt Hon John






Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Hon A.


Blackburn, John
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)


Blaker, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Body, Richard
Hannam, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Paul


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hawksley, Warren


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hayhoe, Barney


Braine, Sir Bernard
Henderson, Barry


Bright, Graham
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brittan, Leon
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hill, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hooson, Tom


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, David(Wirral)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Butcher, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clegg, Sir Walter
Knox, David


Colvin, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Cope, John
Lang, Ian


Corrie, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Costain, Sir Albert
Latham, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawrence, Ivan


Critchley, Julian
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Crouch, David
Lee, John


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Luce, Richard


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Robert


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Emery, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Eyre, Reginald
Madel, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Major, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marland, Paul


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marlow, Tony


Farr, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mates, Michael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mawby, Ray


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forman, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mayhew, Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Mellor, David


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fry, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Morgan, Geraint


Gorst, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Mudd, David


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Murphy, Christopher


Grist, Ian
Myles, David


Grylls, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Needham, Richard





Neubert, Michael
Speller, Tony


Newton, Tony
Spence, John


Nott, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Onslow, Cranley
Sproat, Iain


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Squire, Robin


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stainton, Keith


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stanley, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stokes, John


Pawsey, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Percival, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pollock, Alexander
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, Donald


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Raison, Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim
Waddington, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wall, Patrick


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Ward, John


Rossi, Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wheeler, John


Scott, Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wickenden, Keith


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Silvester, Fred



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Speed, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 41

DECISIONS INVOLVING EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to move amendment No. 48 in page 31, line 10, leave out subsection (1).
I do not think that anyone could oppose the sentiments of the subsection. Like motherhood, the sentiments are rather nice. The subsection is, however, nonsense. It will have not a scintilla of effect on the law of the land or on the application of that law. The subsection is purely verbiage. It is a sop to noisy, uninformed and sometimes malevolent critics of the Bill. It is pure preaching and exhortation. It might be proper and acceptable if delivered from a pulpit. It is absurd and out of place in an Act of Parliament.
First thoughts excluded subsection (1). First thoughts, like first impressions, are often right. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said on many occasions that this is not a racialist Bill. I agree. If it were a racialist Bill, I would be opposed to it. As it is not a racialist Bill, there is no need for the subsection. We should have left well alone. So what happened? The Government, after much


consideration and no doubt after much advice, brought forward the original Bill—the Bill they wanted, the Bill they believed to be fair and correct, the Bill that they believed corresponded with the wishes of the people and the Bill they thought to be sensible.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Until they changed their mind.

Mr. Marlow: As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) implies, the Government were then got at. First, the Labour Party led by the right hon. Gentleman—the Sparkbrook footpad—mindful of the large immigrant vote in most marginal constituencies determined, in a most unscrupulous and discreditable way, to misrepresent the Bill as a racialist Bill, which it is not. Vote grubbing is always pretty sordid. In the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, it has plumbed new depths.
The Labour Party was then joined by the enthusiastic amateurs of the cloth, tripping over themselves as they rushed to the barricades to fight the purported injustices of the Bill without either understanding the issues or carrying out any scrutiny of the credentials of their far from disinterested informers. There was no substance, but there was a row. Sadly, as is often the case, Governments dislike rows, and, instead of standing firm for common sense and for what my right hon. Friend would have said was an unnecessary change in the Bill, nonsense prevailed. Damaging concessions were made and damaging legislation was produced.
Clause 41 is concerned with discretion. It gives the Home Secretary, a governor or a lieutenant-governor discretion over the granting of nationality to minors, over naturalisation and resumption of nationality following renunciation, among many acts of discretion. The original Bill—it now appears in subsection (2)—stated that, in exercising their discretion, the Secretary of State, a governor or a lieutenant-governor
shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application".
It adds that the decision of the Secretary of State, a governor or lieutenant-governor
shall not be subject to appeal to, or review in, any court".
Yet subsection (1) states that the discretion shall be exercised
without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person who may be affected by its exercise".
Let us suppose that the Lord High Chamberlain, in his voyage through the list of the great and the good, turns up a bad one. Let us suppose that a bad egg slips through the net and is installed as governor of one of our few remaining imperial atolls. Let us suppose that this governor, once installed, develops a fetish about green-eyed, brown-skinned Chinamen of some obscure branch of the Presbyterian faith and decides to exercise his discretion only in their favour. What recourse would be available to a brown-eyed, black-skinned Scottish Buddhist who believed that discrimination had been exercised against him?

Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to be funny or offensive?

Mr. Marlow: I am trying to make a point. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot follow me, I feel rather sorry for him. I shall finish my point.
What recourse would be available to a brown-eyed, black-skinned Scottish Buddhist who believed that discrimination had been exercised against him? The Government need give no reason for their action. No appeal can be taken against that action. Where does our hero go? What action can he take? Where can he go for solace, justice and restitution? What, then, is the meaning of subsection (1)? What is the value of subsection (1)? What is the effect of subsection (1)?
Then there is the reverse possibility. Let us suppose that a religious sect develops in some far-flung corner of the world. Let us suppose—it could happen—that one of the sacraments demanded by this strict and demanding order would be the human sacrifice of young children. Might not the Home Secretary, in his wisdom, feel inclined to be discreet over the grant of nationality to the adherents of such beliefs? Would he, under the Bill, be allowed to exercise such judgment?
This subsection, as put forward, is manifest nonsense. It is not for this House to produce nonsense and put it on the statute book. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to withdraw the subsection.

Mr. Nick Budgen: In view of the greater publicity that is likely to be given to these proceedings compared with the Committee proceedings, I hope that the Minister will explain some of the practical implications of the implementation of clause 41. Although all of us who have been in politics, even for a short period, understand the importance of the little nonsense, this is not a little nonsense. It is important, serious and properly meant. Will the Minister tell us where, for the purposes of clause 41(1), discrimination is defined? I hope that my hon. Friend will note the questions that I ask, because my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and I want serious answers and do not wish to delay the proceedings. Serious answers will assist us. I can find nothing in the definition clauses to help us to understand what discrimination means for these purposes.
Under section 11 of the Local Government Act, central Government may make grants to local authorities. My recollection is that it is at least arguable—in my time, I have disputed it—that those grants may be made taking into account the number of persons in any given area who are of certain ethnic minority groups. That could be described as reverse discrimination—the fashionable term.

Mr. Hattersley: That is correct.

Mr. Budgen: It may be regarded as reverse discrimination. Are we to understand that discrimination, as defined here, covers not only what I shall call straight discrimination but also reverse discrimination? If it covers reverse discrimination, perhaps my hon. Friend will explain how the Secretary of State can make decisions which are a necessary part of his duties without going along with acts of reverse discrimination which are sometimes done under the dubious legality of section 11 of the Local Government Act?
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has raised an important issue. If this is serious legislation and the might of the State is to be put behind it—not a case


where two glasses of sherry and a pat on the back from the bishops are insufficient and that something is needed in the Bill to make them feel that all their trips from their dioceses to London have borne fruit—surely the subsection should not be in the Bill. If it is meaningful, it should be law that can be enforced.
The essence of law is that it should be enforceable. We are not here to make pious protestations. We are here either to take away rights or to give rights. If a substantial minority in the country believes that it is at risk from grievous, straightforward discrimination from the Home Office, surely there should be a right of appeal and an obligation on the Secretary of State to state his reasons. The very existence of subsection 2 raises the suspicion that must exist in all our minds that this is nonsense, and not merely one of those amusing nonsenses that we so often enjoy. This is dangerous nonsense.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The next two amendments to be debated are Social Democratic Party amendments, first, to force the Government to give a reason for refusal, and, second, to deal with the question of appeal. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to support those amendments on the basis that they will give teeth to subsection (1)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we get too far, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating whether to leave out subsection (1), not subsection (2).

Mr. Budgen: With respect, the nature of subsection (1) can perhaps be revealed by the existence of subsection (2).
My observations are merely probing observations. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend would support palpable nonsense merely to try to assuage the complaints of a vocal minority. I am sure that he will assuage my doubts and that I shall find it possible to support the Government on this matter, as always.

Mr. Hattersley: I should not have done the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) the courtesy of prolonging the debate, and thus making it more important, had it not been for the fact that in Committee I told the Government that I welcomed the addition of clause 41(1) and would be glad to support it publicly whenever the opportunity arose. It has been the hon. Gentleman's technique, whenever I have offered a tentative or humble opinion on the Bill, to announce that my opinion was the result of my desire to grub about for the votes of immigrant minorities. If that is true in this particular, I am grubbing about in the company of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Methodist Conference. That is not bad company in which to grub about for such squalid purposes.
I do not propose to pursue the boring subject of my motives, not even the more fascinating subject of the motives of the hon. Member for Northampton, North. He said that were the Bill a racist measure he would not support it. He said that, so it must be true. However, I wish that he would cease giving the opposite impression, first, by saying all those things that arouse racial feeling and, secondly, by pursuing all those notions on the Bill that are certain to divide racists in this country rather than bring them together.
It is a matter of embarrassment and shame to me that I share a place in the House with a Member who writes down and then reads out such phrases as "brown-eyed, black-skinned Scottish Buddhists" and then speculates

about how the Home Secretary would behave towards ethnic minorities, part of whose normal practice is the human sacrifice of a young child. No doubt the hon. Gentleman regarded that as the epitome of sophisticated wit, but that view will not be shared by either side of the House.
On the principle of the amendment, I agree with half of what was said, or implied, by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). He misunderstood not only the phraseology, but the meaning of positive discrimination and affirmative action. I understand his difficulties. I agree that clause 41(1), which the amendment seeks to remove, would be better and more effective were it subject to appeal to a tribunal or court. I only wish that when the House divided on that principle yesterday we had had the advantage of the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby in support of the contention that he is advocating this afternoon. He suggests an appeal or objection when he does not have to vote for it, but when an appeal was possible yesterday afternoon he voted against it.

Mr. Budgen: I was simply asking the Minister about the Government's position. If the Government are serious and not spoofing, I expect them to support the argument put forward by Opposition Members.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the Government will defend themselves more than adequately. Let me offer what I believe to be the Government's view. While the Opposition say, and will continue to say, that such qualifications should be written into the Bill in a way that can be tested in law, there is a substantial argument in favour of writing in such a declaration in clause 41.
I shall make only two points, because this is a debate of absolute triviality. I shall make the points because the hon. Member for Northampton, North appeared to be operating in his new capacity as guardian of our matchless constitution. He implied that declarations of Government intent were inappropriate in Bills. Either he or one of his misguided hon. Friends made that point in Committee, until I had the good fortune to point out that such a declaration appeared in the great Education Bill of 1870, against which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman would have voted. Other members of the Committee, better informed in historical and constitutional matter; than myself, quoted other Bills that had begun their preamble and long title with a general statement of Government principle about the matter under consideration. For my part, I can think of no more appropriate a Bill for such a declaration than one concerning British nationality, and therefore the nature of British society.
It is appropriate that in this clause, which deals with the grant of British citizenship at the Home Secretary's discretion, the Home Secretary should declare on his behalf and on behalf of his successors that when he makes that grant and exercises that discretion it is his intention and will that those who exercise discretion on his behalf should use their judgment in a way that is unclouded by considerations of race, colour and religion. I hope that that affirmation is an opinion that will unite both sides of the House and the people of Britain.
My only reservation about the clause is that I should have liked to see such an affirmation included in an earlier part of the Bill, and applied to the Bill as a whole. Grubbing about as I do with the bishops for Labour votes,


I share the view of the Church of England, the Catholic hierarchy and the Methodist Conference that the Bill should have begun with a firm declaration that the definition of British citizenship was concerned with citizenship in a nation that has become a multi-racial community, has been accepted as such, and is welcomed as such.
5.15 pm
While the Government were not prepared to go that far, it is proper that they should go as far as they have in clause 41(1). It helps to allay the fears of the ethnic minorities. I have to say to the hon. Member for Northampton, North that it is clear from his behaviour, his demeanour and from every speech that he makes on this issue that, far from wanting to allay the fears of the ethnic minorities he believes that there is some advantage in increasing their fears and insecurities. I am happy to say that that is not the Government's view. I am happy to pay tribute to the Government in that particular. It is because of such a clause that some of us are prepared to say, as I say, that while the Bill will bear with disproportionate force on the ethnic minorities, I have no doubt that it is not the Government's intention that it should do so. I have tried to draw a distinction between racism by intent and racism by effect.
It has never been my role or purpose to accuse the Government, especially the Home Secretary, of racist intention. That he was prepared to insert such a clause in the Bill confirms what I am happy to accept and believe to be his good faith in these particulars. For that reason I hope that the Home Secretary will not need our support in the Lobby. I hope that there will be universal agreement about the declaration. If the House is divided, we shall certainly support him to show our judgment about his intentions. We shall support him in the belief that the Bill should allay the fears of the racial minorities and that the clause goes some way towards achieving that desirable objective.

Mr. Stanbrook: It should be pointed out that the subsection under discussion was not included in the Bill as originally presented to the House, but was inserted at a later stage in Committee. I was opposed to it then, and I am opposed to it now. I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I believe that the Government are in some intellectual difficulty. It is rather inconsistent to insert such meaningless verbiage into a Bill that has such political significance.
I hope that Britain does not believe in putting pious platitudes into legislation. We do not believe—and this is especially true of the Conservative Party—in empty gestures. If we put things into our law, we always try to make them enforceable. Airy-fairy, meaningless platitudes—so beloved of the Liberal Party, which has not held power for a long time—are no help to the clear discussion of political issues and to the wise government of a country. For that reason we do not, as a principle and custom in Britain, indulge in such expressions. They mean nothing. They are expressions of good will, gestures of respect, aspirations of honesty, purity and love. We all know that those are matters of individual conscience that

cannot possibly be the subject of statute, but that, unfortunately, is what the Government have fallen for in this subsection.
I am not saying that many other countries in the world—many other legislatures—do not indulge in such a foolish device. Indeed, one has only to read many international conventions—for example, that of the United Nations—to—see that aspirations, international humanitarianism and peace—

Mr. Budgen: I remind my hon. Friend that the United States has a Supreme Court with the duty of deciding individual cases in the light of the general aspirations set out in the constitution. It may be that the Home Secretary has a view about the creation of such a court in this country and that we are to move in that direction. I do not know.

Mr. Stanbrook: That may be. I am always glad that those who framed the United States constitution were mistaken in thinking that they were copying ours, because we do not put judges at the top of our system. Thank goodness, we place at the top of our political system elected leaders who can interpret the will of the people better than judges can.
All these lovely phrases and wonderful humanitarian aspirations and commandments to be loving, friendly, beneficial—

Mr. Raymond Whitney: And virtuous.

Mr. Stanbrook: —and virtuous, as my hon. Friend suggests—are common currency on the international scene, and certain Governments indulge in them all the time, so that we never know what they are really saying. France and the French Government particularly like this game. One sees the signature of the French State annexed to one of these wonderful aspirations and pious expressions of international good will and so forth, and that looks marvellous. Later, with ratification, come the conditions. Then, right at the bottom, one finds the kind of words that change the whole attitude towards enforcement.
In this country, fortunately, we have been more honest than that. Generally speaking, we put into our laws only those things in which we believe and are willing to enforce—

Mr. Whitney: Hitherto.

Mr. Stanbrook: —hitherto, as my hon. Friend says. There have been one or two occasions perhaps when we were led by a Liberal or a Labour Government, when, unfortunately, we may have fallen into error, but, generally speaking, Conservative Governments do not fall into this kind of error. That is why I applauded when my right hon. Friend resisted the pressure to put into the Bill the kind of wishy-washy nonsense that the bishops and the Churches wanted inserted about recognising that this is a multi-racial society, as though it makes the slightest difference to the meaning of the words in the Bill. Indeed, had such an expression been inserted by way of a preamble to the Bill, under our law words in preambles are not part of the statute and therefore cannot be prayed in aid in court.
That brings me to the intellectual inconsistency on the part of the Government in this little matter if this aspiration or commandment is to be given to Secretaries of State. We all know that no Secretary of State will exercise his discretion in a racially discriminatory way and that it is


unnecessary to put this provision into a statute. But if we were to say that he needed this kind of injunction, it would be intellectually consistent to provide some kind of review of his decisions. If this is to be a matter of discretion, who will know whether in any particular case there was a breach of the provision? It is impossible to say. It is a matter for his own conscience, and such matters are best left alone.
The subsection might also give rise to legal complications. Having provided for a statutory duty, it is difficult then to say that no decision under the clause shall be subject to appeal or to judicial review in any court of law. What, then, is the point of putting in such a provision? Unfortunately, it is simply a gesture to those in the community and their political leaders who believe that gestures have some value. As a matter of honesty, we must say that they do not. The Bill is what is enforceable in it. It is no use at all and does not advance the cause of immigrants and would-be British nationals to say that the Secretary of State must exercise his discretion in a virtuous way. Of course he will. Moreover, if he did not, there would be nothing in the Bill to prevent that.
I therefore ask the Government to accept the amendment, although without any great conviction that they will, because the provision is nonsensical and ought not to be allowed.

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has just said that he asks the Government to accept the amendment, but without any great conviction that they will. Those closing words were entirely justified, because I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The amendment would remove a provision which we believe has a useful role to play, not least in reassuring those in the ethnic minorities who have expressed fears and anxieties about the Bill. We do not believe that those fears and anxieties are justified, and we believe that they have been played upon by various elements concerned to discredit our intentions in bringing forward the Bill. Nevertheless, we recognise that they exist and we are concerned to allay them. We regard this provision as playing some part in that process and in helping people in the ethnic minority communities to feel secure. To say that the provision is damaging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North did, seems extremely far-fetched. Who on earth does he believe that it could damage?
We do not see the provision as anything more than I have described. I emphasise that we do not see it as suggesting in any way that discrimination is practised in exercising the discretionary powers to grant citizenship, or that it has been practised in the past.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Orpington touched on the question of appeals. We do not see this as a prelude to an appeal system. Anyone who considers that he has been refused citizenship on the grounds of race, colour or religion will be able, as at present, to make representations—possibly through his Member of Parliament—to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament for his decisions. Allegations of this kind could also amount to complaints of serious maladministration and would therefore come

within the purview of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, if referred to him by the individual's Member of Parliament.
There is, therefore, a remedy for the aggrieved applicant who considers that he has been discriminated against, and in our view there is no justification for any new machinery in the light of this provision. That, however, is not to say that we do not regard the provision as worth while. We believe that it has value as a statement of good intent and practice.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It has been the custom up to now of Home Secretaries of both parties never to state to a Member of Parliament or to the House—and they are not required to do so—their reasons for turning down naturalisation applications. Is the Minister saying that henceforth the Home Secretary will be expected to be more forthcoming to a Member of Parliament in explaining why an application has been turned down?

Mr. Raison: It is true that there is no requirement to state the reasons, but that is not to say that the reasons are never stated. It is also true, as I have just said, that there is the possibility of recourse to the ombudsman, and this has happened in the past. If the person felt that he had been refused on some kind of discriminatory ground, he could go to his Member of Parliament. Knowing the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) as I do, I am sure that he would take the matter up. There is, therefore, the power to raise this matter.

Mr. Jim Marshall: On the question of exercising discretion, I think that the Minister knows that I am at one with him on the desirability of including this provision in the Bill. I draw his attention, however, to a difficulty that he might have to face, or indeed may already face. The provision refers to non-discrimination in terms of religion as well as other factors. He will be aware that there are a number of Churches operating in this country which do not have a good name and have been the subject of various investigations. If an individual involved in that sort of organisation were to apply for naturalisation, how would the Minister be able to say that he would not be influenced by opinions that he may have, or by opinions held in the community, about the way in which these Churches or organisations operate?

6 pm

Mr. Raison: That is a slightly hypothetical question. I have always been reluctant to generalise when discussing these matters. I prefer to consider particular details. When considering naturalisation, we have in mind a specific set of circumstances. If we had reason to believe that an individual might do some specific damage, that factor would be taken into account in assessing his character. We try to avoid generalisations.
The provision has value as a statement of good intent and practice. The clause contains the principles upon which the discretionary system of granting citizenship must work in a multi-racial society if it is to command respect and acceptance. I believe that it does no harm for the Government to make that clear. The value of such declarations must not be over-estimated, but a statement of this sort from the Government is seen as a reflection of our commitment to a racially harmonious society. I believe that it is welcomed by those in the ethnic minority


communities who are trying, often against considerable odds, to stress the virtues of moderation and responsible behaviour.
A provision of this sort has been pressed for by many groups both inside and outside the ethnic minority communities.

Mr. Marlow: I am at one with my hon. Friend in wanting to allay any fears and alarm among the ethnic minorities. As my hon. Friend has just said, a statement of this sort does allay those fears, but why does it have to go in the Bill? Why cannot the Government just make the statement? People would understand it just as well.

Mr. Raison: The Government have on many occasions made similar statements to that which appears in clause 41(1). However, in the context of the Bill there are certain apprehensions. These have been unjustified, but they exist. We have inserted the provision to allay these anxieties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) told me in a rather peremptory way that I had to write down his questions. Being obedient to the command of my hon. Friend, I started to do so. His first question was to ask where "discrimination" was defined in the Bill. I do not know why he asked that question. The word "discrimination" does not appear in clause 41(1). I do not think that discrimination is defined. However, there is no reason why it should be, because it is not in the provision that he is apparently trying to delete. He then asked a question that probably had something to do with clause 11, involving grants to local authorities. That in turn raised the issue of reverse discrimination. I did not really understand what he was talking about, and I am not sure whether he did. The issue seemed to be irrelevant to the debate. At that stage I stopped writing down my hon. Friend's questions.
I have made the point, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made it too. The clause and subsection have to be seen as a reflection of deeper attitudes and as evidence of our commitment to a racially harmonious society. As I said in Committee,
there are people living in this country who crave reassurance. Their fears and apprehensions are exaggerated, and too many people are stirring up these fears and apprehensions. The value of this amendment is that it will do something to offset these fears and apprehensions and to show those concerned that we believe that they are entitled to be treated fairly and, in particular, not to be discriminated against."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 12 May 1981, c. 1936.]
That is the essence of our position, and that is why I call upon the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I shall delay the House for a few brief moments after the love-in of the two Front Benches. I had wished to put a few questions to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for him to answer when he replied, and I am sorry that I am not now able to do so.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in what I thought was a typically modest contribution, talked about the statement in clause 41(1) and described it as an affirmation or declaration of faith in the multi-racial society. Having listened to the views of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to insert such a phrase into all Bills

that pass through the House. It may be thought by some that at the beginning of the next Parliament the assertion should be made that all our legislation is carried without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person.
I share the view of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends that this form of words does not need stating in our tolerant society. In the Western world, ours is perhaps the most tolerant of societies. It does not need to be stated in our legislation in one Bill or in several Bills. That is my main reason for supporting the amendment introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
My hon. Friend the Minister of State talked about the need to give reassurance. I presume that he meant that it is necessary to give reassurance to the ethnic minority communities. On an earlier amendment I spoke about the need to give reassurance to the indigenous population. The balance in the Bill is upturned, and that I regret.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to tell us what "race" means. What is the definition of "race"? What is meant by "colour" and how is my right hon. Friend's discretion to be affected by clause 41(1)?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) spoke about discrimination when discussing clause 41(1). I happen to believe in discrimination. Discrimination is a good word. Another word, a smaller word, is "choice". I believe that in all human dealings we should discriminate in the widest possible area and in every way that we can detect. Choice is good. It is good for individuals and it is good for society.
I find myself in some difficulty in accepting the Government's contention in changing this provision between Second Reading and Report. I regret that the change has taken place, and I feel that the motive force behind the insertion of this provision will get to work and that the thin end of the wedge will be pushed more and more in the House and more and more into subsequent legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 31, line 17, after 'discretion' insert—
'save where the reason for refusal of an application is that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that requirements of residence or of sufficient knowledge of the English or Welsh language have been fulfilled'.
The purpose of the amendment is to compel the Secretary of State to inform applicants why an application for citizenship has been refused, where the reasons for that refusal are that requirements of residence have not been met or that sufficient knowledge of the English or Welsh language has not been shown.
The amendment has been dictated by the addiction of Democrats—a view that all hon. Members should share—to open government and to an open society. In recent years there has been an increase in the powers of the Executive. The least that someone is entitled to know is why the Executive makes such decisions. The Bill states that the Executive is under no obligation to tell an applicant for citizenship why his application has been refused. Nevertheless, that application is of great importance to the applicant and may alter his life and his privileges, rights and duties.
The trouble is that under the Bill there is no appeal system through the courts and the applicant who does not know why he has been refused has only one remedy, namely, to go to his Member of Parliament. However, the


Member of Parliament is handicapped when it comes to taking sensible details from his constituent, because the applicant cannot tell him why he has been refused. For example, a man might say that he had been refused because the Home Office thought that it was not his intention to reside here. He might claim that it was his intention to do so. The Member of Parliament could then ask the applicant what his intentions were. Having collated the material, he could write to the Minister setting out the reasons why the applicant—and perhaps the Member of Parliament—thought the decision wrong.
The Member of Parliament might adduce information from the applicant that would change the Minister's mind. Therefore, if an hon. Member wishes to represent his constituent effectively, he must be able to ask him the right questions. Under the Bill, a constituent is not told the reason for refusal, and therefore an hon. Member cannot ask the correct questions.

Mr. Robert Taylor: How can the gentleman involved be a constituent if he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lyons: That is a technical point. Like most hon. Members, I believe that anyone living in a constituency is entitled to ask his Member of Parliament to consider his problem. If hon. Members refuse to help, they may prevent many loyal people from having their cases considered by a Minister. Some may have been denied nationality simply because of a language difficulty. They may have lived here all their lives. Some may have fought on the same side as the British Army. The sons and daughters of those with problems often come to Members of Parliament for help. Those sons and daughters are British citizens and constituents. It is to adopt a narrow view of an hon. Member's responsibilities to say that he should refuse to relay worthwhile material to Ministers on behalf of his constituents.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Might I suggest that hon. Members are representatives of constituencies, and not of the electors in those constituencies? We come to the House as representatives of a place and everything that affects those living there.

Mr. Lyons: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that support. The amendment is a paving stone for arguing that there should be some form of appeal or judicial review. Such a system cannot work unless the reason for refusal is known. The qualifications for naturalisation are set out in schedule 1. They are requirements of residence, of knowledge of language and of good character. The amendment does not oblige the Government to state any reason for refusal if it is based on a lack of satisfaction about the applicant's good character.
6.15 pm
To that extent, the amendment maintains a fall-back position. In Committee, amendments were tabled to the effect that the Home Office should give reasons for a refusal in such cases unless security was involved. The Home Office argued that that would indicate to those suspected of being security risks that that was the reason for their refusal. Therefore, for the purpose of the amendment, I have omitted good character.
No harm can be done by telling a person the reason for the refusal if it is based on the ground that his knowledge of the language is insufficient. That can have no bearing

on security. I accept that the Minister sometimes provides that information. However, there is no reason why the provision of such information should not be mandatory. The same applies to refusal on the grounds of residence. It is not uncommon for constituents to believe that the Home Office's interpretation of ordinary residence and of periods spent in this country is unduly restrictive and wrong.
As the Minister knows, hon. Members often write to him about what constitutes five year's residence. Under the Bill, the requirements for residence have been changed. Less is left to discretion and more is left to fact. A person must show that he has been here for five years and that he has not been out of the country for more than a certain number of days. However, schedule 1 contains the provision that the applicant must show that he intends to remain in Britain. That is a matter for argument.
On Tuesday we dealt, to some extent, with how the Home Office considered fluency in the English language.
The basis of my argument is that many people say that they want open government. If that is so, why should someone not be given the reasons for a refusal of citizenship when it is made on the ground of inadequate residence, inappropiate intentions as regards residence or inadequate fluency in English or Welsh? It is not good enough for the Government to take refuge behind the argument that that would give someone else a hint that he was being refused as a security risk. We must push towards a more open system, and Social Democratic Party Members have tabled the amendment with that in mind.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I am not sure how far the amendment goes. If there are two reasons for refusal, one of which is incompetence in the English or Welsh language, will the amendment require that the language difficulty be stated and that something be added to show that there is another reason, or will the language difficulty be the only reason stated? In the latter instance, the amendment should apply only to cases in which the only reason for refusal is incompetence in English or Welsh.

Mr. Lyons: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a lawyer's point. As a lawyer, I do not say that with disrespect, but if the refusal is on the grounds of language difficulty and/or residence, that fact should be stated. If the amendment is technicality defective, there is plenty of time to amend it in another place. The Government will have no problem doing that.
We need a more open attitude by the Government. In this country and others we are seeing a continuing encroachment by the Executive and more power being handed to the Executive. It is the duty of all hon. Members to fight to ensure that there is a limit to that.
There are thousands of applications for citizenship every year, and it is impossible for one Minister to keep a close eye on the applications and how they are dealt with. The decisions rest with civil servants. Civil servants change, and those of 20 years hence may make unjust decisions, raise the required standard of English or take a tougher line on intention of residence. Why should applicants not be told why their application has been refused, so that, even if judicial review is denied to them, they can take the matter to their Member of Parliament, who can assemble the necessary material?
The Minister of State said in Committee, and has repeated on Report, that hon. Members have a role to play.


I wonder whether it is right for hon. Members to be dragged so much into the forefront of such matters, but that is where we are and the Minister of State has frequently referred to our being in that position. Hon. Members are entitled to have information from their constituents, and the constituents are entitled to receive that information.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There are times when Ministers and civil servants get papers, names and people mixed up. Mr. S. I. Patel may not be the Mr. S. I. Patel that Ministers or officials think he is. He may be refused because it is alleged that he has a stain on his character. If he is not told the reason for the refusal, he cannot explain that he is not the Mr. S. I. Patel who has done something wrong.
The Minister ought to explain to applicants the reasons for refusals. Will the amendment cover that point? If so, I shall support it, but if it does not go that far I shall have to reconsider my position.

Mr. Lyons: The amendment would enable someone who spoke English fluently to smell a rat and to suspect that there had been a mistake in identity if he were refused on the ground that he could not speak English.
More than 75 per cent. of applications are refused on the basis of inadequate residence or inadequacy of language. The amendment would cover all those people and would enable them to direct their minds to the appropriate point, so that they could try either to improve their English or to conform with the requirements of residence as soon as possible. I ask the Government to think again.

Mr. Bidwell: I do not wish to detain the House for too long. I am acutely aware that I did not have to endure the long hours of the Committee stage. I was fortunate enough to be chosen to serve on the Committee dealing with the Transport Bill, which was also guillotined, and that is why the Minister of State did not enjoy my presence on the British Nationality Bill Committee, which was denied the wisdom that I have acquired through being the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall.
I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). We have been jointly involved in race relations and immigration in the past, but we have never had a collaborative exercise in the Chamber as a Labour Member and an SDP Member. I warmly approve of what the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing in the amendment, though I may not approve of what he does on other occasions. The amendment leaves out the question of good character, which would involve a determination of what is held to be good character. That aspect will remain unsatisfactory. The amendment confines itself to language and residence requirements.
It is not good enough for the Minister of State to say, as he did in an earlier intervention, that inquiries can be channelled through hon. Members. Much will depend on whether hon. Member's are diligent, and some are not. It would be wrong to deprive an applicant of an explanation for the refusal of his application. I hope that if the amendment is not accepted the Government will bear in mind the anxieties that the Bill has aroused and will assure us that there will be improvements to the present system.
I have never sought to arouse needless anxieties. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,

Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I do not believe that the Home Secretary has any fundamental differences with me about the necessity for struggling for racial harmony in Britain. The right hon. Gentleman may not have had my grass roots involvement, but I do not see any fundamental differences of principle between us. I am sure that he wishes to allay fears and he could do so by telling us that he will improve the present system.
Hon. Members have asked why people have been refused naturalisation and the automatic answer has always been that it is not customary for the Home Secretary to reply in detail to Parliament or to an hon. Member, giving details of the reasons for turning down an application. We have been left to guess and often our guesswork has been correct because we ask the constituent what he has done and we find out that he may have been involved in a misdemeanour. Thus, he has to wait 10 years for naturalisation instead of the normal five years. I hope that Ministers will be more forthcoming about the possibility of improvements, because the Government have forced the pace and there will be more applications for naturalisation.
The Labour Government did not bring forward nationality legislation. In doing so this Government, rightly or wrongly, have taken their fate in their hands. We have not heard the last of it. In such matters there is always an area of flexibility. We may find ways and means by which information would be more readily forthcoming when the Home Secretary finds that he has to turn down applications.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I would like to follow briefly on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) who speaks with considerable knowledge of these matters, having regard to the constituency which he has served well for many years. My constituency is not dissimilar. There is little doubt that there will be an increasing number of naturalisation applications. My concern is that there is bound to be a great deal of suspicion and irritation if the Secretary of State does not assign reasons for the refusal of applications for naturalisation on these two grounds, neither of which involves questions of security.
When there are likely to be several thousand more applications than are currently being made, there must be cause for concern about the objectivity of those who carry out the tests. It is not possible for the Secretary of State to satisfy himself as to the scrupulous fairness and the standards of objectivity applied by individual members of his staff. There can be little doubt that injustices will arise.
I do not want to prolong the debate because the matter was debated at considerable length only the other day. Nevertheless I should like to put on record, as a Member of Parliament with a large number of constituents from various areas of the New Commonwealth, my concern and theirs about the operation of the system. I stress that this is an area where no question of national security can be involved. One way of allaying some of the fears and anxieties would be for the Secretary of State to relent a little, to bear in mind the wide areas of concern and to go out of his way to ensure that justice will be seen to be done. That is not asking a great deal. I have no wish to inflame the situation and I think the Secretary of State will take it from me that I am not being disruptive. Having had many


discussions in my area I wish to assist him to allay anxieties. I hope that his response will be correspondingly positive.

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that I can to some extent at least answer the proper anxieties of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). I do not believe that I should accept the amendment. First, it is unnecessary, as I shall explain. It would create difficulty in that it would put undue weight on specific grounds of refusal. I shall come back to that argument.
As the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West made clear, the amendment seeks to provide that the Secretary of State should not be exempted from giving reasons for refusing applications which are at his discretion when he is not satisfied that the applicant has met the residence requirements or the language test. Once the transitional provisions for the acquisition of citizenship are phased out, only applicants for naturalisation have to meet these particular requirements, so here we are dealing with requirements which applicants for naturalisation have to meet under schedule 1.
As was explained in Committee, it is the normal practice to tell unsuccessful applicants for naturalisation the reasons for the refusal of their applications where this arises because they have not satisfied the residence requirement or the language test. We discussed this again on Report in the lengthy debate on the appeals procedure. Then I gave a similar and clear undertaking as to my view about what should be done. I made it clear that we proposed to go on giving reasons after the Bill came into force.
I see no reason why this practice, which has gone on for some years, should change. I would go further. Having heard the debate the other day, I would seek to be more positive than before in giving reasons in these instances when it is possible to do so. Reasons have been given. If hon. Members can point out cases where this has not been so I shall be prepared to consider them.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the Home Secretary saying explicitly that he will now give reasons in relation to refusals on grounds of character other than the issue of national security?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, I did not say that. I confined myself to the residence requirement and the language test. There are difficulties in going further. I was asked to comment on those two points which are raised in the amendment. It is on that basis that I am addressing myself to those points. The hon. Gentleman said that I had said I would go further. I said I would go further in these two areas and that if it was put to me that there were cases in regard to the residence requirement and the language test where reasons had not been given I would seek to be as positive as I could in giving reasons.
I think that the record will show that that is what I said. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like me to go further.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am sorry; I thought that the right hon. Gentleman went further in his speech the other night. I thought that in saying he was going further now he was about to say that and that is why I asked him the question.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am prepared to consider giving reasons, but I am confining myself to this amendment. I cannot see any point in compelling the Secretary of State to give reasons on these issues. If we already do it and want to go on doing it, I am not clear why it is necessary to try to compel us to do it.
There is a further difficulty. It could be argued that statutory force should be given to this practice so as to restrain our successors who might be less generous. I doubt whether that would be necessary. There is a practical difficulty. A requirement like this would mean that when insufficient knowledge of English was only one of the reasons why an applicant had been refused one might get into further difficulties. This was the point made by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke). The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West said that it was rather a lawyer's point. It makes it very difficult for me to make it because I can think of few people less likely to make a lawyer's point than myself. I did not think I was making one. I think it is a practical point of some importance.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The amendment says
save where the reason for refusal",
not a reason for refusal. Does not that meet the point that the Secretary of State is making?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think it does. I will look at it again. As I understood it, the point of the amendment was that the reason would be given particularly in the case of insufficient knowledge of English. If it was not only that but other reasons, one gets into a difficulty. I do not necessarily say that it is an insuperable difficulty, but there would be scope for awkwardness and misunderstanding.
To single out these two grounds of refusal would have an unfortunate effect on our general approach to the giving of reasons. As has been repeatedly stressed in Committee, we want to give reasons, and I made it clear this afternoon that I am keen to do so. Reasons may on occasion be given where an applicant's financial position is unsatisfactory, particularly where there are arrears of tax, or where an applicant has had a recent but not too serious criminal conviction on which a more lenient view might be taken with the lapse of time.
We are particularly concerned that, where it is possible for the applicant to put the matter right, he should know why he has been refused—that meets the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall—so that he may have the opportunity to take action before applying again. We are constantly reviewing the practice to see whether more can be done to help applicants in this respect, and we shall continue this positive approach to the question of giving reasons.
In effect, the amendment would make it necessary to give reasons only in two instances—where refusal is on grounds of failure to meet the residence requirement, or of failure to meet the language test. Some hon. Members have made it clear that they do not think that those should be the only circumstances in which reasons should be given. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was keen to push me further. The amendment could have an inhibiting effect and make such a further move difficult. The amendment might have the damaging effect that if reasons were given that the applicant had failed to satisfy the residence requirement or the language test it would be unnecessary for the Government to strive unduly to give reasons in other instances, to some of which I have


referred. A positive approach, as at present, makes extra demands on hard-pressed staff, and means that some cases have to be looked at particularly carefully to see whether and how reasons can be given.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The clause states that the Secretary of State shall not be required to give any reason, not that he shall not give any reason except in these two cases. The effect of the amendment is not that the Secretary of State cannot give reasons in other cases if he so desires, but that he shall not be required to give reasons.

Mr. Whitelaw: That does not invalidate the objection that if there is a requirement to give reasons in two particular cases there will be a tendency to give reasons only in those two cases and there could be an excuse, because the statutory requirement is there, not to give reasons in other cases. I have had administrative experience and, in my view, that is a valid and reasonable point, although I do not make too much of it.
We shall give reasons for the refusal of citizenship wherever we can. I have given that assurance, and I give it again. That is a much better and broader approach than the narrow statutory requirement envisaged in the amendment.
I hope that I have shown to the House that I am anxious to give reasons wherever possible. I certainly hope to give reasons in the two conditions set out in the amendment. I do not wish to go further than that, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the amendment. I believe that a statutory requirement would sometimes be restrictive on the giving of reasons.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I should like to be clear on what will be the practice in the future. Will the Secretary of State endeavour to give reasons where possible, or suggest the two-year period, which is already present practice? If he does not do so, will not people interpret giving no reason and suggesting no further application in two years' time as meaning that it is not sensible for the individual to apply again because he has no hope of working off his character defects? Is that the position? People will interpret the letters they receive very carefully in the future.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think all that can be read into it. We would not wish to read all that into the present practice. I am anxious to make the present practice as forthcoming as possible, and that is why it would be wrong for me to be led any further on the lines suggested.
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West, whose feeling and motives in this matter I fully understand, will decide on balance that it is better not to have this statutory requirement but rather to try a positive approach to giving reasons in the future.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 31, line 19, leave out 'or review in'.
The intention of the amendment is to ensure that there shall be a right of judicial review of refusals of applications for citizenship. On Tuesday, the House debated a new clause tabled by the official Opposition seeking to set up an appeal tribunal against refusal. In addition, a new

clause, which was not selected, was put down on behalf of the Social Democratic and Liberal Parties to enable appeals to be sent to an adjudicator, as happens now under the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. Virtually all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches wanted an appeals procedure, but we lost that vote.
There is no appeals procedure against Home Office decisions on applications for citizenship. But the Home Office has gone further than was the position even in 1948, by excluding judicial review. In 1948 judicial review did not exist, but now it does, since the Law Commission recommended judicial review and rules of court were made to give effect to the Law Commission's report. The judiciary, the Divisional Court in particular, upon application, can look at the method by which decisions are reached to determine whether there has been a proper exercise of discretion by officers of the Executive and whether the rules of natural justice have been observed.
By deliberately inserting an exclusion of the right of judicial review the Home Office has shown that it is determined that no one shall interfere with the operations of the executive branch of government dealing with nationality. That is distressing. It means that the Home Office is saying that it does not want the judges, however esteemed and respected they are, however concious of their responsibilities, to poke their noses into the way in which it conducts its business in relation to the thousands of people who apply for citizenship year by year. Anyone who feels that the operations of the Executive should be opened up to scrutiny must be disturbed that this possible last-ditch judicial right to intervene, and possible judicial scrutiny, are to be excluded from the Bill.
This is probably the first Bill to come before Parliament from which a right of judicial review has been excluded. Before 1977 that right did not exist.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is a prerogative writ a judicial review? I ask only as an earnest seeker after truth.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The hon. Gentleman asks whether writs of certiorari and mandamus are a method of judicial review. I suppose that they are, as the present system is their successor. None the less, for the Government to go out of their way to exclude an examination of the way in which decisions are reached shows a nervousness which a self-respecting Home Office need not show if it is confident that all its operations will withstand the scrutiny of our High Court judges.
I should like to see the system of judicial review extended. I am against anything that precludes the courts from watching over the operations of the Executive to ensure that it is operating its discretion fairly and as intended by the Legislature when that discretion was given. Therefore, I make no apologies for introducing the amendment on behalf of the Social Democratic Party. We believe that the courts should be a recourse for citizens and residents who apply for citizenship. Without delaying the House further, because I know that the guillotine falls at 8 pm and that important amendments are to be debated, I ask the Minister to consider allowing the amendment to succeed—it is a simple amendment—to ensure that in administrative law there is a remedy and the possibility of investigation by the judiciary into the way in which decisions are reached.
I am a member of the executive of Justice. Justice is a reputable organisation of legal watchdogs seeking to see


that the law is impartially and fairly administered and that Executive decisions are reached without oppression against those against whom they operate and in respect of those who are affected by them. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will change his mind.

Mr. Raison: I am afraid that I shall have to tell the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) that the Government cannot accept the amendment. It is intended to open the way for those refused citizenship by grant, as opposed to entitlement, to seek a judicial review of the decision. It could be argued that we accept that those who have an entitlement to citizenship and are refused it can seek a judicial review of the decision and that we should be prepared to grant a similar right to those who seek citizenship by grant, and who are refused it. However, I believe that those cases are different.
A person who has an entitlement to citizenship has to fulfil criteria which are essentially objective—criteria such as residence and citizenship status and, in clause 3(2) of the Bill, parental occupation. If an applicant for citizenship as an entitlement considers that the Home Secretary has acted wrongly or unreasonably in refusing to grant him the citizenship to which he considers himself entitled, and seeks a judicial review, the courts can properly consider the procedures leading to the decision and whether a fair and reasonable decision has been reached. The criteria are essentially limited, specific and objective.
However, citizenship by grant rests to a considerable extent on different criteria. Of course, applicants for naturalisation have to meet objective criteria such as residence, but they also have to meet subjective criteria—the most notable of those is, of course, the good character requirement, though the requirements as to language and future intentions also have subjective elements. Though there are well-established procedures for considering those matters, the judgments that have to be made are essentially subjective. The courts would find it much more difficult in such cases to determine whether the decision was fair and reasonable. In order for the courts to make such a determination, the reasons for the decision in question would have to be made known. The Government are not prepared to accept the principle that reasons should be given in all these cases.
We consider that the arguments against an appeals system—which have already been rehearsed—against refusals of citizenship by grant apply equally here. As long as the good character requirement remains and is assessed on the basis of reports, it would not, in our view, be apt to permit applicants for citizenship by grant to seek judicial review of the decision to refuse them citizenship.
There are, of course, practical problems too. The police would be reluctant to have information divulged to them in confidence and set out in their report to the Home Office possibly produced in court and made available to the applicant. They would feel restricted in the information they could include in reports, and the Home Secretary's discretion could be greatly limited. There would be particular difficulty with refusals on security grounds. The courts would not welcome additional and time-consuming work.
Accordingly, in the light of those factors, and particularly the inherent difficulty of any meaningful judicial review of subjective criteria, I urge the House to reject this amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The Question is, That the amendment be made.
As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Mr. Edward Lyons: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, "No". [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that the Noes have it.

Mr. Lyons: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Noes have it.

Mr. Lyons: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I put amendments Nos. 49 and 50 together? [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) had indicated that he did not want a Division.

Mr. Edward Lyons: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said "Aye" on two or three occasions. I thought that I had said it clearly. I am conscious of the passage of time, but I should prefer a Division on the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 282.

Division No. 201]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dempsey, James


Adams, Allen
Dewar, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Dixon, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, Jack


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Douglas, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dubs, Alfred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dunn, James A.


Beith, A. J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Eadie, Alex


Bidwell, Sydney
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bradley, Tom
English, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, John (Newton)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Faulds, Andrew


Buchan, Norman
Field, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ford, Ben


Canavan, Dennis
Forrester, John


Cant, R. B.
Foster, Derek


Carmichael, Neil
Foulkes, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cartwright, John
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Conlan, Bernard
George, Bruce


Cook, Robin F.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cowans, Harry
Ginsburg, David


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Golding, John


Craigen, J. M.
Graham, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Crowther, J. S.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cryer, Bob
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Haynes, Frank


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Heffer, Eric S.


Deakins, Eric
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)






Home Robertson, John
Race, Reg


Homewood, William
Radice, Giles


Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Horam, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roper, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ryman, John


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sandelson, Neville


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sever, John


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Leighton, Ronald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Litherland, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McTaggart, Robert
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marks, Kenneth
Tilley, John


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Tinn, James


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Torney, Tom


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Maxton, John
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkins, David


Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Michael


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, Frank R.


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morton, George
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Newens, Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


O'Halloran, Michael
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Palmer, Arthur
Wright, Sheila


Parker, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Parry, Robert



Pavitt, Laurie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Robert Maclennan and Mr. Edward Lyons.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Prescott, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Bendall, Vivian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Ancram, Michael
Best, Keith


Arnold, Tom
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert(Presto N)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Biggs-Davison, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Blackburn, John





Blaker, Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hannam, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hastings, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brittan, Leon
Hawkins, Paul


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Brotherton, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Henderson, Barry


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hicks, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hill, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Budgen, Nick
Hooson, Tom


Burden, Sir Frederick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kimball, Marcus


Clegg, Sir Walter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cockeram, Eric
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Knox, David


Cope, John
Lamont, Norman


Corrie, John
Lang, Ian


Costain, Sir Albert
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cranborne, Viscount
Latham, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Lawrence, Ivan


Crouch, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lee, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Loveridge, John


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
MacGregor, John


Eggar, Tim
Mac Kay, John (Argyll)


Elliott, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McQuarrie, Albert


Fairgrieve, Russell
Madel, David


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Major, John


Farr, John
Marland, Paul


Fell, Anthony
Marlow, Tony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mates, Michael


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mather, Carol


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mayhew, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Mellor, David


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond
Molyneaux, James


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Griffiths, E. (B'ySt.Edm'ds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Moore, John


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)






Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Speed, Keith


Mudd, David
Speller, Tony


Murphy, Christopher
Spence, John


Myles, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neale, Gerrard
Sproat, Iain


Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin


Nelson, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Newton, Tony
Stanley, John


Nott, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Martin


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Parkinson, Cecil
Tapsell, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald


Percival, Sir Ian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Pink, R. Bonner
Thornton, Malcolm


Pollock, Alexander
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, Barry
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trotter, Neville


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Proctor, K. Harvey
Viggers, Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waddington, David


Raison, Timothy
Wakeham, John


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Renton, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rhodes James, Robert
Wall, Patrick


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rossi, Hugh
Whitney, Raymond


Rost, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Scott, Nicholas
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wolfson, Mark


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shepherd, Richard



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Sims, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 46

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made:

No. 49, in page 33, line 29 at end insert—
association" means an unincorporated body of persons;'

No. 50, in page 33, line 39 at end insert—
company" means a body corporate;'.—[Mr. Raison.]

7 pm

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 35, line 10, leave out from 'to' to end of line 13 and insert—
'being resident within the United Kingdom at any time after his conditions of residence have been removed by the Secretary of State. The burden of proving that the conditions were removed as a result of fraud, false representation or the deliberate concealment of any material fact shall lie upon the Secretary of State. Appeals against any such decision shall lie to the adjudicater under the Immigration Act 1971'.

In the last few debates we have extolled the virtues of the judges in relation to the review of ministerial decisions. In this debate I want to make it plain that the judges are people with clay feet.
Over the last 10 years, the race relations issues that have most caused deteriorations in the assuredness of status of the ethnic minority groups have not emanated from this House.
Apart from the changes in the rules about fiancées, which may have had a wider effect, the issue I am raising has had more effect on race relations than anything we have done here or anything that Ministers have done. That action was taken by the judiciary. Because it was in relation to what we call illegal immigrants, the matter has been so overshadowed by emotion that no one has been able to think straight or seriously about it since the judges made their decisions.
I want to try to defuse the emotion to enable us to recognise the serious injustice that has been done, is being done and will continue to be done, unless we make a change. In 1962, any Commonwealth citizen was entitled to enter this country at will. No one could stop him. In 1962 the Conservative Government took the view that they had to introduce controls on Commonwealth citizens. Thus, all Commonwealth citizens became subject to immigration controls. However, because the decision was so controversial, the number of work permits issued was generous and no one paid much serious attention to illegal entrants other than seamen deserters.
The 1962 Act has made it plain that seamen who overstayed their leave were illegal entrants and could be removed. That was all, save and except one class of person, namely those who entered across the beaches or flew in in private aeroplanes and were in this country for up to a month. If they were caught within the first month they were treated as illegal entrants and could be removed in the same way as if they had presented themselves at an immigration desk. If they stayed more than a month they could not be removed. In the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 it was made an offence so to enter. That had not been an offence before. Therefore, if a person was caught within a month he was prosecuted. Because the limit of jurisdiction for a summary offence—which it was then made—is six months, seven months were allowed in which to take action against an illegal immigrant.
If a person managed to avoid the scrutiny of the immigration service for more than seven months he was entitled to stay here permanently. He could not be removed or prosecuted. He had achieved permanent residence. For that reason in 1971 it was decided that that situation should be changed. The House will agree that it should have been changed. It was wrong that illegal entry should have been treated so leniently until then. That was the law between 1962 and 1973, when the 1971 Act came into force.
The second schedule to the 1971 Act provided that in future anyone who was here illegally, however he had entered, would be able to be removed—not deported—in the same way as if he had come to the desk at London airport and had been refused entry. We understood and accepted that. Soon afterwards the courts interpreted that provision to mean that whenever or however a person had come up to 1968 he could be removed at any time in the future. There was a retrospective element in that. That was why the Labour Government decided that we would not apply the retrospective effects of the 1971 Act. That was


the so-called amnesty which was not an amnesty, but it recognised that we had not intended to legislate retrospectively. We believed that people who entered between 1968 and 1973 should have the benefit of what we had intended and we said that only in the future would we apply the provision.
7.15 pm
That is water under the bridge. It was clear in the 1971 Act that no one had intended that a person should be treated as an illegal entrant if he came through immigration control and was allowed to enter by an immigration officer. No one considered that that was the effect of the Bill. Therefore for several years after the 1971 Act came into force the Home Office did not consider that it was entry by deception if someone came in at London airport and told lies—however material those lies were—and afterwards it was found that he had obtained entry by deception. However, the courts decided that that was entry by deception.
If the House had had that put to it during proceedings on the 1971 Act, it is possible that the House would have agreed that that was right. Where there was a deliberate attempt to deceive at London airport and an immigrant told lies to get in, the House may have agreed that it was right to change. However, we did not take that view in 1971 and that was not what we intended by the legislation. It came about only as a result of decisions in the courts.
If we had wanted to make that major change of policy the House should have made the change, not the courts. I might be prepared to go along with it if there were deliberate deception and lies were told material to the issue. The courts have said that, unlike contractual obligations such as the purchase of a car or a house, where an intention to deceive has to be proved by positive words or actions, entry to this country is like dealing with the insurance business. There one is obliged in good faith to tell everything that might be material to the person to whom one is making an application.
The burden is upon the applicant to prove that he has done everything in good faith and therefore one can be said to be deceiving even if one did not volunteer information or even if a certain question were not put. It is possible, too, that the person who carried out the deceit was not the applicant because he did not fill in the form or answer the questions but was doing it through an agency and consequently the deception was by the agency. Nevertheless, the applicant is liable, as a result of recent decisions.
The courts may not have gone to that extent, but the Immigration Appeal Tribunal recently decided that it does not matter whether the fact on which an immigration officer was deceived was material to his conclusions. It does not matter if the immigration officer were to say that he would not have taken the decision adversely even if he had known the fact. There is a tribunal decision to that effect. I do not think that the courts have gone as far as that. There is one sentence in the decision of Lord Wilberforce in the leading case of Zamir where it might be concluded that he did not intend that. He said:
It is clear on general principles of law that deception may arise from conduct, or from conduct accompanied by silence as to a material fact.

I do not know whether that is the law or the way that the Home Office and the immigration service are applying the law.
Whatever is the interpretation of schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, I understood when I was a Minister that that could apply only to entry after 1968 because in 1968 entry by deception was made a criminal offence.
What I now find in some cases that I have seen—and in one which I have just referred to the Minister—is that the Home Office is applying the doctrine to cases where the persons concerned entered before 1968. I have very considerable doubts whether the Home Office is legally entitled to do that. I know the Minister's views about entry by deception and illegal entry, but if it was not illegal before 1968, it seems to be quite wrong that people should be removed now because they entered before 1968 in ways which are now regarded as amounting to deception.
The real gravamen of the charge is not that it applies to people in the future. The real gravamen is that years after people came in—from 1968 onwards—and settled here—and, in two cases before the courts, acquired citizenship here—they can have their citizenship status removed and their settled status removed, simply because someone has come along later and said "You deceived us because you did not tell us the full truth about your conditions when you came into the country".
That action could be taken in relation to a child who had made no kind of representation to the immigration service, when the representations were made by his parents. That child may have come to the country in 1969 or 1971 and may now be 12 or 10 years of age. He can suddenly be seized upon and told by the immigration service "You are not entitled to be in this country because you are not settled in the way in which we say you should be settled". Nothing has caused more difficulty than that in the black community.
When people were stopped in a self-service store in North London, the immigration officers had gone there on a tip-off that some of the staff were thought to be illegal entrants, without proper documentation. On that occasion, the immigration officers stopped a number of people who were walking around the store. Those people were not employed there. Nevertheless, they were asked to produce evidence to show that they had a proper immigration status and were settled here. In order to do that they needed their passports, but they were not allowed to go and get them. They were taken to the police station and put into a cell until somebody, on their behalf, could produce a passport that the Home Office was prepared to accept as indicating that they were settled. Even then, they were questioned about the way in which they had entered the country. That sort of action should not be conceivable in any circumstances.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend has not made clear on what basis the immigration officers or police selected for questioning the people who were moving around the store and who were not employed there. What was the basis of selection?

Mr. Lyon: We are still awaiting some public explanation, but I understand that there was no criterion for selection. The police had gone to the store because they had a tip-off that some people employed there were illegal entrants. But the police had no ground whatever for stopping the people who were shopping in the store. On


that basis, the police could just as well have stopped people in the street or on the Underground. The police are likely to do that only to black people, and that is the fear that black people have.
The kinds of decisions that have been taken, in relation to people who thought they were settled here, have now alarmed many people whose status is not being questioned, but who feel that if it can happen to other people it can also happen to them. That is the dilemma facing the black community at the moment.
I am seeking, by the amendment, to give reassurance to a great many people who are not illegal entrants. The vast majority of the people in the black community are not illegal entrants, but they want to be sure that when the conditions have been removed from their passport they will be regarded as being settled here and will not in the future have their status called into question. If they are allowed to settle, in the sense that the Home Office has removed the conditions, that should, prime facie, be a barrier to any further investigation. If the Home Office then wishes to say "You are still an illegal entrant by the definition of the courts", it will be up to the Home Office to bring evidence to prove it. The case will then have to go to the adjudicator and to the tribunal to decide whether the allegation is correct.
At present, because such people are regarded as illegal entrants, they can be removed, under the powers given in schedule 2, just as if they entered at London airport on the very day on which they are challenged. That can be done, even though they may have been living here for years and may have a job and may have bought a house. Such people can be seized and put on an aeroplane on that very day. Usually, they are seized and put into prison and kept there for several weeks while the Home Office decides what to do about them. But then they can be put on an aeroplane and they have no right of appeal.
It is not like deportation. If the Minister were to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that in those cases he would be prepared to act as if they were subject to deportation and not to removal, that would give them an immediate right of appeal. The Minister has the absolute power to do it if he wishes. He is not obliged to act under schedule 2; he can act under the deportation provisions.
I know that the Minister has issued a discussion document in which he is proposing possibly to allow a right of appeal in such cases, but he could do it at this minute by telling the civil servants that he would prefer to use the deportation provisions rather than the removal provisions.
In cases of this sort the burden of proof should lie on the Home Office. The Home Office should have to prove the case because it has removed the conditions in the first place. I accept that, if my amendment is passed, the Home Office will have to go into matters very much more carefully, and with a considerable degree of scrutiny, before it removes the conditions. But if it does so, the assurance can be given to anyone who has had the conditions removed that he has nothing further to worry about and is secure.
Even if it meant some delay, I would rather the Home Office did that. It would be better than continuing with the cat-and-mouse game of sending out the shock troops of the immigration service in order to land on some poor unsuspecting black person and tell him that, even though he has a passport with no conditions on it, he might still

be sent back to his country of origin. That is not good for race relations, and the Minister knows as well as I do that nothing has caused more anxiety than this issue.
We have tried several times in Committee to get him to change his mind on this issue. I hope that, even at this late stage, he will be prepared to do so.

Mr. Raison: I am in a little difficulty because the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of his amendment to complain—and I understand his case—about the way in which the courts have made entry by deception illegal entry. He has hardly spoken to his amendment and has, if I may say so, hardly bothered to relate his arguments to the question of nationality. I think that it would be proper if I tried to respond to the contents of the amendment.

Mr. Lyon: The whole purpose of my amendment is to define settlement. Settlement is the very basis on which nationality is granted, and it is because it is defined in a different way in the Bill that I have sought to change it. I thought that the Minister might understand that.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has now prudently, at my invitation, related his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Lyon: I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand.

Mr. Raison: I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman would be relating his remarks to the Bill. I believe that we can now agree that he has done so. I shall therefore say a little about the impact and consequences of his amendment. My remarks will have a bearing on his argument.
I cannot accept the amendment to the concept of "settled" in the Bill. The definition used is broadly the same as that used for many years in immigration control. A person who is free of conditions on his stay will be so regarded unless he is entitled to diplomatic immunity or is a member of the visiting forces. A person here in breach of the immigration laws is not regarded as settled. That is at the heart of what the hon. Gentleman was talking about.
The immediate effect of the amendment would be greatly to enlarge the ambit of the Bill. It would cover everyone who had ever been made free of conditions after his arrival in the United Kingdom regardless of whether he had left the country for years on end. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman argues that by so enlarging the ambit of the Bill he would make sure that people who at present might be liable to lose what they had thought to be their settled status, as a result of the discovery of deception, would be excluded. The hon. Gentleman did not argue whether that was his aim in the first part of his amendment. I can only assume that it was his objective.
A perhaps unintended restriction in the amendment would be to exclude from being settled those admitted unconditionally in the first place—that is to say, those whose conditions never had to be lifted. That is a technical point.
The second part of the amendment relates to the burden of proving that deception has taken place. In practice, a person who maintains that he or his parent is or was settled in circumstances in which the Home Office considered that deception had been practised so as to vitiate a lease could challenge the Home Office view in two ways. He could apply for judicial review and seek an order of mandamus, but such proceedings would not resolve the dispute of fact.
That dispute could be resolved in the second way in proceedings for a declaratory judgment. A full trial would take place at which the issue would be decided on a balance of probabilities. The court would not look to the plaintiff to show that there had been no deception whether by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. The court would look to the Home Office to show, on a balance of probabilities, that there had been. The amendment would have no practical purpose.
The final part of the amendment provides that someone whose conditions are found to have been removed as a result of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact shall have the right of appeal against the Home Secretary's decision to the adjudicator under the Immigration Act 1971. Such a person would normally have the right of appeal against the consequences that would flow in immigration terms from the decision on the removal of his conditions. He would normally be liable to be removed as an illegal entrant. Under section 16 of the 1971 Act, there would be a right of appeal against removal, exercisable, as the hon. Gentleman said, from abroad.
The Government published recently a consultation paper about the appeal procedures in the course of which we raised the question whether a right of appeal should be conferred to take place here before removal rather than from overseas. We indicated our sympathy in principle with some change in this respect and also with the possibility of introducing a right to bail. We pointed out that there are considerable practical problems, particularly relating to the question about how far back the illegal entry would have had to take place.
Alternatively, the person concerned would be liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) of the 1971 Act and would have a right of appeal which can be exercised while he is in the United Kingdom under section 15 of the 1971 Act. It does not therefore seem necessary to give such a person a separate right of appeal against the decision on the removal of his conditions. It would seem particularly inappropriate to do so under the provisions of this Bill. After all, the matter is essentially one of immigration control and not nationality.
Although we do not believe that the children of illegal entrants should be able to stay here if their parents are removed—unless they are 10 years old under the provision that we introduced in Committee—it is not the invariable practice to remove illegal entrants who are detected. All the factors of the case are taken into account before a decision is reached. Where discretion to allow an illegal entrant to remain is exercised, leave to enter is normally granted for an indefinite period. The parents would thereupon be settled and any minor children would have an entitlement to be registered under clause 1(3). The same goes for overstayers whom we decide can remain for an indefinite period. If neither parent had been lawfully settled a child would not be entitled to citizenship. If, however, the parents are allowed to stay, an entitlement will come into being.
The effect is that someone could be discovered to be an illegal entrant. The child as a consequence, would not have citizenship because the parent was not settled. However, as soon as we had made the decision that the

person could remain in the country, a new entitlement would come into being as the parents acquired settled status by virtue of being allowed to remain in this country.
In practical terms, within the context of the Bill and clause, my remarks meet part of what I take to be the hon. Gentleman's concern. The hon. Gentleman may argue that it is wrong that the child of the illegal entrant should be removed under all circumstances. He may argue that this is a consequence of our move away from jus soli. My remarks mean, however, that where parents are permitted to stay, even though illegal or overstayers, their children will be able to acquire a new entitlement that will be of importance to them.
I hope that my remarks meet the context of the amendment. I believe that the system we have put forward is reasonable. The hon. Gentleman's broader attack on what the courts have decided goes much wider than this case. I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 279.

Division No. 202]
[7.37 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick


Adams, Allen
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Allaun, Frank
Dubs, Alfred


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, James A.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Eastham, Ken


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
English, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (Newton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Faulds, Andrew


Bradley, Tom
Field, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Forrester, John


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Campbell, Ian
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Cant, R. B.
George, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Golding, John


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cook, Robin F.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cowans, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Haynes, Frank


Craigen, J. M.
Heffer, Eric S.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Crowther, J. S.
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Homewood, William


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hooley, Frank


Dalyell, Tam
Horam, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howells, Geraint


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Huckfield, Les


Deakins, Eric
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dixon, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dobson, Frank
Janner, Hon Greville


Dormand, Jack
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas






Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Ryman, John


Leighton, Ronald
Sandelson, Neville


Lestor, Miss Joan
Sever, John


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Skinner, Dennis


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McElhone, Frank
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spriggs, Leslie


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


McNally, Thomas
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


McTaggart, Robert
Stott, Roger


Magee, Bryan
Straw, Jack


Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maxton, John
Tilley, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Watkins, David


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, Frank R.


Morton, George
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Whitlock, William


Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Parker, John
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Pavitt, Laurie
Woolmer, Kenneth


Penhaligon, David
Wright, Sheila


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Prescott, John



Race, Reg
Tellers for the Ayes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Richardson, Jo



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Blackburn, John


Ancram, Michael
Blaker, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Banks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Bendall, Vivian
Brittan, Leon


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Best, Keith
Brotherton, Michael





Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hicks, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hill, James


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hooson, Tom


Buck, Antony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Butcher, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butler, Hon Adam
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Clegg, Sir Walter
Knox, David David Lamont,


Cockeram, Eric
Norman


Colvin, Michael
Lang, Ian


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Corrie, John
Latham, Michael


Costain, Sir Albert
Lawrence, Ivan


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Critchley, Julian
Lee, John


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Luce, Richard


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Robert


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Eggar, Tim
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Eyre, Reginald
McQuarrie, Albert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David


Fairgrieve, Russell
Major, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marland, Paul


Farr, John
Marlow, Tony


Fell, Anthony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mawby, Ray


Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Patrick


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mellor, David


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James


Gower, Sir Raymond
Monro, Hector


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morgan, Geraint


Grist, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murphy, Christopher


Hampson, Dr Keith
Myles, David


Hannam, John
Neale, Gerrard


Haselhurst, Alan
Needham, Richard


Hastings, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, Paul
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Cranley


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Henderson, Barry
Page, John (Harrow, West)






Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stanley, John


Parkinson, Cecil
Steen, Anthony


Parris, Matthew
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stokes, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pawsey, James
Tapsell, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pollock, Alexander
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Thompson, Donald


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thornton, Malcolm


Prior, Rt Hon James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Raison, Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim
Waddington, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker, B. (Perth)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rossi, Hugh
Wall, Patrick


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Ward, John


Scott, Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wells, Bowen


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Shersby, Michael
Wickenden, Keith


Silvester, Fred
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spence, John



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Squire, Robin



Stainton, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Miss Jo Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 37, line 22, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
'(9) For the purposes of this Act an illegitimate child shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and his father.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 54, in page 37, line 23, after 'of, insert 'father or'.

No. 55, in line 24, after 'a', insert 'man or'.

No. 56, in line 25, after `to', insert 'him or'.

No. 57, in line 25, leave out from 'her' to end of line 28.

Miss Richardson: I hesitate to draw attention to the amendments that are linked with my amendment, because of the rather uneasy company in which I find myself. I only hope that it will not be held against me.
I hope that the Minister of State will relent and agree to accept my amendment. I say that because on two occasions in Committee he said that if the Law Commission—to which I shall come later—brought out its report on illegitimacy later this summer the Government

would look kindly on changing the law yet again to incorporate its proposals. I hope, therefore, that I can persuade him to do that now.
The Bill introduces a concept of nationality that passes through the mother as well through the father. That is a welcome concept, but it applies only to the children of people who are married, even if the parents are divorced. I find that discriminatory. It is discriminatory to the father, and it discriminates against the child. It is the child about whom we must concern ourselves in all our discussions on the Bill.
There are all sorts of circumstances that lead people not to get married. There are personal circumstances, and I do not wish to comment on them, because everyone has his own view, and we do not know the circumstances of individual couples. A couple may prefer not to get married, or may not be able to marry, because of a previous marriage by one of the partners. It will be a great pity if, by allowing the Bill to pass with the clause as it stands, we shall not give the right to the father to pass on nationality by descent. Other countries have that provision in their law, and they do not appear to have any difficulties with it. Such a provision is operated in New Zealand, France, Italy, the Netherlands and other countries. I do not understand why Britain cannot also operate that provision.
We have some distinguished opinion on which to draw. As those right hon. and hon. Members who follow these matters will know, the Law Commission is conducting a comprehensive examination of family policy. It produced a working paper on illegitimacy in March 1979, and it has since been receiving further evidence on the whole question of legitimacy and illegitimacy. I understand that a further report is to be published in the summer.
7.45 pm
During the past decade there have been a number of attempts, mainly through Private Members' Bills, to narrow the differences in the treatment of legitimate and illegitimate children—for example, inheritance, maintenance and so on.
The Law Commission's working paper, apart from proposing the abolition of the other forms of discrimination to which I referred, specifically considers the reform of our nationality law. I wish to read to the House a couple of short quotations from working paper No. 74, entitled "Family Law: Illegitimacy". It states:
The second out-dated aspect of the 1948 Law … is the discrimination, in the matter of the transmission of citizenship, between those born in wedlock (or subsequently legitimated) on the one hand, and illegitimate children on the other. Consistently with the general arguments contained in this paper, we think that steps should be taken to remove that discrimination; and it seems to us that the argument for doing so is considerably fortified by the fact that such a change in the law would simultaneously solve the sexual discrimination problem which would arise if an illegitimate child could inherit citizenship from his mother only.
That is a pretty positive statement.
The paper continues:
We cannot see any compelling argument for preserving, in this area of the law, what would look like a relic of the legitimacy/illegitimacy distinction after that distinction has been expunged from the law as a whole.
The Minister will recollect that in Committee he said:
The Law Commission is due to report on illegitimacy and the Government will take account of its views … Any agreed changes could be incorporated in any legislation stemming from the Law Commission's report as soon as the opportunity offers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 February 1981; c. 187.]


Why cannot we do that now? The Minister and the House know that once we have passed a law it can be years—assuming that one Administration remains and another Administration, which I hope it will, does not sweep aside the whole thing—before amendments can be made. Many reasons are brought forward explaining why it is not convenient or workable to amend the law to make things better. The Minister's phrase
as soon as the opportunity offers
could turn out to mean never. I want to ask him yet again to consider the matter and agree to the change now.
The argument against passing citizenship by descent through the father in illegitimate cases is—and I accept that it can be difficult—the necessity to prove paternity, but that is not an argument against change. It is a problem for the individuals concerned. They, rather than the House, should look after that problem. The working paper is clear. I cannot believe that, having produced a working paper—albeit it has invited further evidence—the Law Commission is likely to change its mind. I believe that the words that I have quoted are too positive and that they will stick.
I hope that the House will agree that we are only wasting time if we leave clause 46 as it stands and wait for a long time to go through all the arguments again. In the meantime, great inequality will be caused to some children. It is difficult to quantify the position. The matter is causing great concern to organisations such as the National Council for One Parent Families, and Gingerbread. which have the interests of one-parent families at heart. It would be a good and generous gesture if the Government would agree to give in. I hope that the Minister will take into account what I have said.

Mr. Raison: The House respects the seriousness and the determination with which the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) has approached the problem—at some stages in an improbable alliance with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). We understand and sympathise with the purpose of the amendment.
As I explained in Committee on several occasions, we cannot at present allow an illegitimate child to derive citizenship from his or her father, in the same way as any other child can. I say that not as a matter of principle, but because of the uncertainties about the identity of the father. As the hon. Lady said, the Law Commission is considering the whole problem of recognising paternity. When it reports we shall be glad to reconsider the position of illegitimate children in relation to their fathers. If an acceptable solution can be found, the matter can be dealt with when any legislation recommended by the Law Commission is enacted.
We did not say that we would instantly implement the Law Commission's report. We said that we would consider it sympathetically. One crucial feature will be the extent to which the Law Commission's proposals provide for a procedure that satisfactorily identifies the father. We must get it right. Almost certainly, the law on nationality will be changed if that is feasible at the same time as the law on illegitimacy is changed.
Even in its present form the Bill substantially improves on the status of the illegitimate child under our citizenship laws. At present, an illegitimate child born abroad—for instance, to a woman who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—does not acquire his or her

mother's citizenship unless the child would otherwise be stateless. However, under the Bill an illegitimate child will be able to derive citizenship from his or her mother in exactly the same way as any other child. I hope that that will show the House that we are very much aware of the problems of the illegitimate child, and that we are doing our best to meet them. I also hope that in the light of that explanation the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment. If she does so, I assure her that we shall always be prepared to listen when she presses her case in future. I can well see that the day will come when, if we find the right answer, it will be possible to incorporate such a change in legislation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 281.

Division No. 203]
[8 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Adams, Allen
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
English, Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Evans, John (Newton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Flannery, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Ford, Ben


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Foulkes, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Ian
Ginsburg, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, John


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Carmichael, Neil
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Robin F.
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cowans, Harry
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Home Robertson, John


Craigen, J. M.
Homewood, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooley, Frank


Crowther, J. S.
Horam, John


Cryer, Bob
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Huckfield, Les


Dalyell, Tam
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Hon Greville


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Dewar, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Dixon, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dormand, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Douglas, Dick
Kerr, Russell


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Kinnock, Neil


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted






Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Roper, John


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ryman, John


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sandelson, Neville


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Sever, John


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Hugh
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McKelvey, William
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McNally, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McTaggart, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Magee, Bryan
Spriggs, Leslie


Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Marlow, Tony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Straw, Jack


Maxton, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)


Mikardo, Ian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Morton, George
Watkins, David


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Weetch, Ken


Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


O'Halloran, Michael
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitlock, William


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Penhaligon, David
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Race, Reg
Woolmer, Kenneth


Radice, Giles
Wright, Sheila


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. Frank R. White and Mr. Frank Haines.


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)



Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ancram, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Brittan, Leon


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brotherton, Michael


Banks, Robert
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Best, Keith
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Buck, Antony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Budgen, Nick


Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, Sir Frederick


Blackburn, John
Butcher, John


Blaker, Peter
Butler, Hon Adam


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cadbury, Jocelyn





Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Churchill, W. S.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kershaw, Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Kimball, Marcus


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Corrie, John
Knox, David


Costain, Sir Albert
Lamont, Norman


Cranborne, Viscount
Lang, Ian


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lawrence, Ivan


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dorrell, Stephen
Lee, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Denshore
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Luce, Richard


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lyell, Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
McCrindle, Robert


Elliott, Sir William
MacGregor, John


Emery, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McQuarrie, Albert


Farr, John
Madel, David


Fell, Anthony
Major, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marland, Paul


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mates, Michael


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mather, Carol


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawby, Ray


Fox, Marcus
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Patrick


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mellor, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moate, Roger


Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Monro, Hector


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Montgomery, Fergus


Grist, Ian
Moore, John


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Hannam, John
Murphy, Christopher


Haselhurst, Alan
Myles, David


Hastings, Stephen
Neale, Gerrard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Nott, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hill, James
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Parkinson, Cecil


Hooson, Tom
Parris, Matthew


Hordern, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey






Pawsey, James
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Percival, Sir Ian
Stokes, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pollock, Alexander
Tapsell, Peter


Porter, Barry
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Donald


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Raison, Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rathbone, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Trippier, David


Ronton, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waddington, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wakeham, John


Rossi, Hugh
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rost, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker, B. (Perth)


Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wall, Patrick


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waller, Gary


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitney, Raymond


Speed, Keith
Wickenden, Keith


Speller, Tony
Williams, D,(Montgomery)


Spence, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stainton, Keith



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry


Steen, Anthony



Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now required by the terms of the resolution that the House passed on Tuesday to put the Question on any amendments up to the end of clause 49 moved by a member of the Government.

Schedule 8

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 58, line 7, at end insert—
'(3) Sub-paragraph (2) shall have effect as if the references in it to the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965 did, and as if the reference in paragraph (b) of it to this Act did not, include section (Registration and naturalisation under British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965) of this Act.'.

No. 59, in page 58, line 8, after 'person', insert—
'who has been registered or'.

No. 60, in page 58, line 9, leave out first `commencement', and insert—
'the passing of this Act'.

No 61, in page 58, line 11, after 'which', insert—
'he was registered or'.

No. 62, in page 58, line 28, leave out 'descent' and insert—
'virtue of section 5 of the 1948 Act (citizenship by descent). '.— [Mr. Raison.]

Schedule 9

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 63, in page 62, line 57, at end insert—
`1981 c. British Nationality Act 1981. Section (Registration and naturalisation under British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965).'.

Clause 49

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 40, line 26, after `Ace, insert—
', except the provisions mentioned in subsection (2A),'.

No. 65, in page 40, line 27, at end insert—
';and references to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as references to the beginning of that day.
(2A) Section (Registration and naturalisation under British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965) and this section shall come into force on the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Raison.]

Schedule 1

REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALISATION

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 41, line 24, leave out 'society, company or body of persons' and insert `company or association'.—[Mr. Raison.]

Mr. Edward Lyons: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 42, line 42, leave out 'and (c)'.
The amendment would have the effect of exempting from the language requirement spouses of British citizens. Any woman who married a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies could always apply for registration. That did not involve a language test. Therefore, she could obtain citizenship without having to overcome that hurdle. The effect of clause 5(2) is that henceforth wives of British citizens will have to apply for naturalisation, and that means that they will have to pass the language test.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not my fault that this is the present state of the Bill. The Committee was able, if it thought that this as an injustice, to accept my amendment, as did the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and York (Mr. Lyon). The hon. and learned Gentleman, who did not support it, should not make so much of a complaint.

Mr. Lyons: If my memory is correct, the situation in Committee was not as simple as has been portrayed. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find that those whom he says opposed him will find no difficulty in supporting my amendment.

Mr. Powell: If the Committee had carried my amendment to insert the word "male", offensive though I understand that adjective to be—it was used adjectivally in the context of the amendment—the Government would have had to defend discrimination against the wives of British citizens. This is the doing of those members of the Committee who were not willing to act in accordance with their professions.

Mr. Lyons: If that is so, they will have the opportunity to make amends this evening.
Foreign husbands had to wait for five years before applying for naturalisation and they then had to pass a


language test. The effect of the amendment would be to maintain for women the position that they have always had. I admit that it would grant to male spouses a right that hitherto they have not enjoyed. In these days of sexual equality, it would be wrong to give to one what one did not give to the other. The Government will argue that to ensure equality we must take away from the wife so that she is in the same position as the husband. I take a more positive line. I contend that we should give to the husband what we have always given to the wife. That is the equality of advantage and not the equality of disadvantage. It is a much finer type of equality.
A wife arriving in Britain could apply for registration immediately whereas the male spouse had to wait for five years before making the application. Under the Bill the wife will have to wait three years before making her application for citizenship. The same condition will apply to the husband. Therefore, the husband will enjoy an advantage. He will be able to make his application two years earlier whereas a woman will be disadvantaged. She will have to wait three years before applying whereas previously she could apply virtually upon landing.
We should be reluctant to take away a person's entrenched rights. We should be careful before making a change in the law to ensure that it is necessary. It is said by the Government that they wish to ensure that those with a strong connection with Britain should be enabled to obtain citizenship. There can be no stronger connection than marrying a spouse who is already a British citizen. I argue that the Government should leave matters as they are for women.
The immigration rules have to be taken into account and there will be few men coming into the United Kingdom as husbands-to-be. They will no longer be able to come in as husbands-to-be if their prospective wives were not born in Britain. That will certainly be the position of fiancés. In future men coming into the United Kingdom to marry will be coming to marry girls who were born in Britain. That means that there will be fewer men in that position.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The figures have been increasing very largely because more men from alien countries have been coming to marry white women born in this country. The figures demonstrate that ther are more aliens coming here to marry than men from the Indian Sub-continent.

Mr. Lyons: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was referring to one special category of person. It is true that those who come to marry white women normally have no difficulty because the women have been born in Britain. None the less, there is an argument for parity of treatment between males and females. It seems that there is no good reason for taking away a right, or introducing rules which make it more difficult for women and men to obtain citizenship.
As I said in Committee, many Asian wives find it difficult to achieve a reasonable knowledge of English. That may apply to other foreign spouses. Those who intend to live here all their lives and who have children here may, with the best will in the world, find it extremely difficult to achieve a level of English that satisfies the Home Office and that will enable them to obtain citizenship. In such cases, the only reason for refusal will

be not residence but language. As the years go by most of those refusals will be based on language and on no other ground.
Effectively, we are telling the mothers of future British citizens that they will not be able to obtain British citizenship. I say "the mothers of future British citizens" because when those women come to Britain they will marry British citizens. A child born in Britain of parents either of whom is British is British. Therefore, many women who find it difficult, through lack of formal education, to learn English adequately will become the mothers of British citizens and will have the strongest interest in the welfare of Britain, if only for the sake of the ambitions and security of their families.
I ask the House to support the amendment. If it is passed, mothers—an important category—of British children will not be disqualified from British citizenship merely because of a lack of language qualification. Social Democratic Party Members tabled an amendment to the effect that those who have lived in Britain for a long time but who have not passed a language test should, by virtue of that residence, be able to obtain citizenship. That amendment was based on American rules. The Americans recognise that some people can never learn a language and, as a result, if a person has been in America for more than 20 years and is at least 50 he can obtain citizenship without having to pass a language test. That amendment was not selected for debate.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee, but it was defeated; the Government would not have it. Therefore, we are not being as generous as the Americans. Many people will not be able to obtain British citizenship even if they live here until they are 90, merely because they cannot pass a language test. That language test will remain a permanent hurdle, however long they remain here. I ask the House to take a leaf out of the American book and to go some way towards the American system by a different route. I ask the House to say, in effect, that the spouses of British citizens—who obviously intend to live here a long time—should be entitled to citizenship if the only objection is that their English does not satisfy the Home Office.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I rise briefly to support what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). He has essentially stated the argument, which is one of consistency and parity. I am not in a position to argue with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because I did not serve on the Committee, and nor did any other Liberal Member. Whether or not he is correct—and he has a creeping tendency to be correct when it is a matter of cold logic—should not be a bar to accepting the amendment if it rectifies a wrong. Therefore, I look forward to his support in the Lobby.
If Mr. Smith, fluent in Swedish, went to Stockholm and met and married Miss Sweden 1981, he might bring her back to Britain. Under the previous regulations, even though she spoke no English, she would have been able to register and automatically become a British citizen. She would have the advantages of British citizenship and would be able to vote. Under the Bill that will not be possible until she has passed a language test. Previously, if Miss Smith, fluent in Swedish, had gone to Stockholm, married Mr. Sweden, and returned here with him, he would have had to face a language test.
As the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West pointed out, the Government are putting members of both sexes on the same level, because they both have to face language tests. However, foreign wives are in a more difficult position than before. There does not seem to be much justification for that. Essentially, Liberals are against language tests.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It is just as well that the illiterate cannot read Liberal manifestos.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is being lighthearted about the matter. If someone comes to Britain, marries and has the clear intention of settling down and living here, he or she has every reason to learn English, and will naturally do so. That does not need to be made express in legislation. It was not thought necessary before for foreign women who married British citizens. The case has not been made for a change in principle, other than on the basis of parity. However, that would seem to be a downward parity.

Mr. Stanbrook: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be inappropriate to grant British citizenship to a man who could not speak English. That is the conclusion to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Johnston: I do not think that it is inappropriate. I believe that British citizenship should be offered to the spouse of a British citizen and that no distinction should be made between male and female citizens.
In many cases, especially those involving Pakistani immigrants, there are problems, because, due to the nature of Pakistani families, wives do not move around so readily in the community as is the tradition in this country.
I object to the method by which the tests are conducted. The Home Office relies on police officers to carry out tests on immigrants' doorsteps. Police officers are not necessarily well qualified for that task. Judging people's capacity in a language is an educational function rather than a police function. I understand that when a judgment has been made by a police officer there is no possibility of appeal.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman says that policemen are not suitable people to administer the test, but the test is simply a bit of conversation. The policeman talks to the person involved and finds out whether he or she understands what is said and can conduct a conversation. It is not much more sophisticated than that. If we say that police officers are not capable of talking to ordinary people in ordinary language, things must be getting very difficult.

Mr. Johnston: If it is nothing more than that, why is the change being introduced? If there is not much in it, in the Minister's opinion, there is no justification for a change that will result in people feeling intimidated—not because of any intention to intimidate, but because they are in an unknown country and are not used to the fact that our police are fair, reasonable and just, which is not the case in some of the countries from which immigrants come. There is a feeling of intimidation in some coloured communities. It is not necessarily justified, but what is felt is important.
There must be a question mark over how the tests are applied, and there is a risk that in attempting to apply tests,

probably reasonably and fairly, an unnecessary degree of concern will be caused, particularly to the wives of certain immigrants.
There has been no justification for the change. Hon. Members smiled when I said that Liberals did not favour language tests, but the Government have failed to make a case for extending to men and women a provision that previously applied only to men.

Mr. Raison: We are evidently seeing the first fruits of the great budding alliance between the Liberals and the Social Democrats. I do not know whether the Social Democrats believe in language testing, but no doubt that will be resolved in the policy discussions that lie ahead.

Mr. Russell Johnston: We have had a little laugh about this matter, but we are talking exclusively about the language testing of spouses.

Mr. Raison: Clearly the alliance is strong on that point at least.
The amendment would mean that those who applied for naturalisation as British citizens on the basis of marriage would not need to satisfy the Secretary of State that they had a sufficient knowledge of English or Welsh. I should explain why the Government felt that it would be reasonable to require those applying for citizenship on the basis of marriage to be able to speak the language.
The Government do not believe that marriage alone to a British citizen should provide an avenue to citizenship. We believe that some concessions, such as a reduction in the length of residence required, are appropriate but that in general, spouses, like other applicants for naturalisation, should have to show that they would be acceptable as citizens and able to fulfil the duties and obligations which citizenship entails. Such duties and obligations are, after all, an essential part of citizenship. As the Labour Government pointed out in their Green Paper, it is difficult to fulfil them adequately if one cannot speak the language. That is an important point. We are now talking about a modern world in which it is accepted that women just as much as men should be playing a full part in the civic duties of the country in which they live. Given that that is so, it is reasonable that we should require them, just as much as men, to be able to speak the language of the country.
Although some may regret it, nowadays, in more general terms, wives are seen less simply as dependants of their husbands and more as citizens, potential citizens or people in their own right than was the case in the past. Looking at the history of the nationality laws one sees that a woman was very much the dependant of the man; I have even heard the word "chattel" applied, which is a little hard. The whole notion of citizenship in the past in regard to the relationship of husband and wife has reflected that. That is why we have not seen descent passed through the female line. We are now talking about a world in which men and women are seen to be on a much more equal basis. Therefore it is right that wives just as much as husbands should be expected to be able to speak the language of the country to which they move.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman saying that the notion of dependants is a thing of the past. Will the Home Office now not be using the expression "dependants" to apply to wives and children?

Mr. Raison: I do not know. It has an ingrained use. We talk about the dependants of men who were lawfully settled here before 1973 having a right to come to this country. I am not saying that we will obliterate the word from our vocabulary. I am making the point—it is one which I would have thought the hon. Lady would have been inclined to support—that the relationship between men and women has altered and that, if that is so, just as one believes that men ought to be able to speak the language as part of the qualifications for citizenship, so too should their wives. In a sense we are talking about a change in social attitudes.
It has been suggested that a language test will operate more harshly where spouses are concerned. It has been pointed out, for example, that many Asian wives live very sheltered lives within their own communities and do not therefore have the opportunities for learning English that are available to those who go out daily to work. I can quite see that learning a language may be more difficult in these cases but I do not see that it is impossible. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman a short time ago, the language test is not in practice one of great difficulty. It is usually only a question whether the applicant can make himself or herself understood without an interpreter, to the officer, usually a police officer, who interviews him or her about the application. In addition, as the House knows, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with power to waive the language test where, because of the applicant's age or physical condition, it would be unreasonable to expect him or her to fulfil it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a sense of intimidation that might be produced by the language test. It is conceivable that that could happen, but this is not a new thing that we are talking about. We have had language tests in the past. They have not suddenly been dreamt up. They are a familiar part of the scene. I do not believe that the experience we have had so far justifies any claim that there is a great sense of intimidation about the relatively casual conversation which is the basis of this.
The hon. Gentleman asked me why it mattered if it was fairly straightforward conversation. I think it mattters because one wants to have a feeling that people acquiring citizenship have a rough and ready working knowledge of the language and the ability to understand things said on television or by their neighbours—in other words, a simple ability to get to grips with the fundamentals of civic life. It would be absurd to ask for anything sophisticated and elaborate, and we do not do so. What is sought is reasonable.
The ability to speak our language is one of the best safeguards against disadvantage and discrimination. If in this small way we can help to encourage people and give them an incentive to acquire a better knowledge of our language, we shall be benefiting them considerably. So long as there are large numbers of people living an isolated life, not being able to speak the language, not getting out and about into the world, there will be difficulties. I believe that there are good reasons for retaining the language test, that undue hardship will not be caused by this requirement and that there is a real case for encouraging people to learn the language in this way.

Mr. Russell Johnston: May I give an example? An Asian woman comes to this country and marries a British citizen who dies a few months after the marriage. The woman has been allowed to come to the country, but has

not been accepted as a citizen because of a failure to pass the language test. Would she subsequently be liable for deportation?

Mr. Raison: I think it unlikely that she would be deported, but I do not think I can say off the cuff what would be her status. But that does not alter the essential point. If she had settled status she would be all right. That makes the point that the people who are approaching the language test are all, by definition, people who are entitled to be in this country, people who will be settled here already, so they will not suddenly face removal from the country or severe disruption in their lives if they fail to pass the language test.
For all those reasons I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, that the amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 275.

Division No. 204]
[8.42 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Adams, Allen
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Ewing, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Field, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell, Ian
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cartwright, John
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cook, Robin F.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cowans, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Haynes, Frank


Craigen, J. M.
Heffer, Eric S.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Crowther, J. S.
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Homewood, William


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hooley, Frank


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howells, Geraint


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Huckfield, Les


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dixon, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville


Dobson, Frank
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dormand, Jack
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Douglas, Dick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell






Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kinnock, Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Lambie, David
Roper, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Ryman, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sandelson, Neville


Litherland, Robert
Sever, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs Renée


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S, C. (Dulwich)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McNally, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


McTaggart, Robert
Stainton, Keith


Magee, Bryan
Stallard, A. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Straw, Jack


Maxton, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mikardo, Ian
Tilley, John


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tinn, James


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wainwright, (Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Morton, George
Weetch, Ken


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Newens, Stanley
Welsh, Michael


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
White, Frank R.


O'Halloran, Michael
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitlock, William


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Penhaligon, David
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Race, Reg
Woolmer, Kenneth


Radice, Giles
Wright, Sheila


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. Edward Lyons and Mr. Alan Beith.


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ancram, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Brittan, Leon


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Banks, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Bendall, Vivian
Bryan, Sir Paul


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Best, Keith
Buck, Antony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Budgen, Nick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burden, Sir Frederick


Biggs-Davison, John
Butcher, John


Blackburn, John
Butler, Hon Adam


Blaker, Peter
Cadbury, Jocelyn





Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kershaw, Anthony


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kimball, Marcus


Cockeram, Eric
King, Rt Hon Tom


Colvin, Michael
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cope, John
Knox, David


Corrie, John
Lamont, Norman


Costain, Sir Albert
Lang, Ian


Cranborne, Viscount
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Critchley, Julian
Latham, Michael


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lee, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dover, Denshore
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Loveridge, John


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Richard


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lyell, Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, John


Elliott, Sir William
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McQuarrie, Albert


Fairgrieve, Russell
Madel, David


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Major, John


Farr, John
Marland, Paul


Fell, Anthony
Marlow, Tony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mates, Michael


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mather, Carol


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mayhew, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Mellor, David


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond
Molyneaux, James


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Moore, John


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Murphy, Christopher


Hannam, John
Myles, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Nott, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hill, James
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Parkinson, Cecil


Hooson, Tom
Parris, Matthew


Hordern, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Percival, Sir Ian






Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John


Pollock, Alexander
Stradling Thomas, J.


Porter, Barry
Tapsell, Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thompson, Donald


Raison, Timothy
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Trotter, Neville


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Hugh
Waddington, David


Rost, Peter
Wakeham, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waldegrave, Hon William


Scott, Nicholas
Walker, B. (Perth)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wall, Patrick


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Shersby, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Speller, Tony
Wickenden, Keith


Spence, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stainton, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 43, line 32, leave out 'society, company or body of persons' and insert `company or association'.—[Mr. Raison.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have now reached the final stage of the passage of the British Nationality Bill through the House. The measure that we have examined so exhaustively is, necessarily, a complex one. It is also one which clearly called for the closest scrutiny. It is of very great importance for everyone living or born in this country and the dependencies, and for those who are descended from them. The time that has been expended on consideration of the Bill both in Committee and on the Floor of the House has been well worth while.
When the Government introduced their allocation of time motion, they made it clear that in their opinion there was ample time available in which to consider thoroughly the Bill's remaining provisions. Events have borne out that assertion. In the Committee's remaining stages there were substantial debates on a number of important issues. They included British overseas citizenship, statelessness, appeals, the requirements for naturalisation set out in schedule 1 and dual nationality. I am confident that almost every aspect of the Bill has received the thorough scrutiny it deserves and that the timetable motion served to organise our energies rather than to curtail the necessary debate.

Indeed, the Committee did not find it necessary to use all the time allocated by the motion and rose early on five of the seven days to which the timetable motion applied.
Revision of our nationality law has been long overdue. No one would deny—not least any Government who talked of doing it and did not do it for a considerable time—that the unsatisfactory state of the current legislation has been all too obvious for many years. I am sure that the Government were right to seek to change it. Nevertheless, we did not act hastily. In 1977 the then Labour Government published their Green Paper. This discussed all the main issues and invited views on them. The present Government published a White Paper in July last year. It was based to a great extent on the groundwork done by the Labour Government. Of course, it did not slavishly follow that document. It took account of the comments which people had made on it.
The Bill, introduced last January, and which the House will, I hope, pass tonight, will make an enormous improvement to the present situation. Part I provides for a British citizenship which indicates clearly and unambiguously that the holder has the right of abode in the United Kingdom. I want to emphasise that there is nothing racist in the provisions for acquisition of British citizenship. Indeed, many of the people who will become British citizens belong to the ethnic minority communities. The passage of the Bill will, therefore, ensure that their position is put beyond doubt.
The Bill also introduces a separate citizenship for the British dependent territories. This is obviously necessary. It provides a parallel citizenship for people whose connections are with those territories. They are in no sense to be second-class citizens. I recognise the deeply held feelings in some of the territories concerned that the Bill should have given them more. It would, however, have been difficult to devise a scheme for separate citizenships for all the dependencies, and invidious to single some out from all the others. For that same reason, it would have been discriminatory to make some, but not others, British citizens.
I do, however, want to stress yet again that the Bill in no way alters the United Kingdom's special relationship with her dependencies. Our moral and constitutional ties with them, both individually and collectively, remain as strong as ever.
I come now to the provisions for British overseas citizenship. This is to be held by those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who become neither British citizens nor citizens of the British dependent territories. Much has been said about the position of these people and many unrealistic suggestions have been made. When all is said and done, however, they have since 1968 been unable to enter either the United Kingdom or an existing colony.
The Green Paper said, surely rightly, that
arrangements have to be made for those people who are now citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but who do not have such close ties with the United Kingdom as to become British citizens … To leave those of them who are citizens sof the United Kingdom and Colonies with that status when many of them have little or no connection by birth, ancestry or residence with the United Kingdom or any Colony would prolong a misleading and unsatisfactory feature of the present situation".
Part III is doing no more than what the Green Paper said had to be done.
British overseas citizens are only one of the transitional and residual statuses in the Bill. We also have British


subjects without citizenship, former citizens of Eire who have declared an intention to remain British subjects, and British protected persons. All those will retain access to consular and passport facilities. We shall also continue to maintain the voucher scheme for certain British overseas citizens from East Africa and in India.
Clause 4, as amended by the Standing Committee, also gives British overseas citizens accepted for settlement here the right to registration as British citizens after five years in the United Kingdom. This right is also to be enjoyed on the same conditions by British subjects and British protected persons. We have not, therefore, been unsympathetic to the position of these transitional and residual categories.
Much has been said about voting and other civic rights during the passage of the Bill. It is quite wrong for people to see the Bill as the precursor of future changes in this area. If we had wished to change civic rights legislation, we could have done so without introducing a British Nationality Bill. It is only a matter of ensuring that legislation which at present gives rights to Commonwealth citizens and to citizens of the Republic of Ireland no longer does so. So it is wrong to see the Bill as having the sort of connection with civic rights which some people have seen. Of course, I cannot rule out future changes in the law. That is not practicable under our parliamentary system. But I repeat that the Bill does not have any bearing on the matter, nor do I or Her Majesty's Government have any plans to change the law in the areas which people appear to have primarily in mind. This is an important matter for the minority communities, and I am glad to be able to put the Government's position on record.
There has also been much discussion about the criteria for naturalisation and whether there should be rights of appeal. I do not want to repeat now all the arguments that were considered on Tuesday, when we discussed the matter in a properly long debate, and in which I made a long and, I hope, considered reply. The crucial point has been whether Parliament wants to relinquish the absolute discretion which, through the Home Secretary, is currently exercised over who should receive our citizenship. It seems to me that the Government were right to conclude that the criteria for naturalisation should remain as at present. It is, after all, not unreasonable to ask that a new citizen should be of good character, however subjectively one must inevitably judge that character in practice. It is also fair enough that one should also ask that he be able to speak English. He cannot very well play his full part in society if he cannot do that.
Having described in broad terms the Government's approach to the three citizenships, I come now to the main changes made to the Bill since its introduction. The House will, I know, recollect that during the Bill's Second Reading I undertook that the Government would respond constructively to criticism and to suggestions for amendments. We have certainly kept that undertaking. We have tabled significant amendments to the Bill in order to allay the disquiet which it inevitably, though largely unnecessarily, aroused in the ethnic minority communities.
I should like at this stage to pay a particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has conducted the Bill through the Committee and the House with great patience and great good humour. Even those who disagree with him will recognise both the qualities that I have mentioned. I am personally extremely grateful to him. I

thank also my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who has dealt with the Foreign Office side of the Bill, and without whose help we would have experienced considerable difficulty in many cases. We are grateful to him.
I deal now with the changes that we have made to the Bill. The first amendment is now clause 1(4). Clause 1 provides that a child born here after commencement will be a British citizen only if one of his parents is a British citizen or is settled. The provision has been criticised as racist, but, of course, it is not. This is proved by the fact that the clause would confer British citizenship on the child of parents who were not British but were settled.
It was suggested that there might be some uncertainty in some cases over whether a parent had been settled at the time of the birth. "Settled" incorporates the concept of ordinary residence. In a few cases it may be open to doubt whether a person absent from this country for a long period has remained ordinarily resident. It was also said that some children might, in later years, find difficulty in establishing whether their parents were settled at the time of their birth. We therefore added subsection (4) to clause 1 to confer on a child who has lived here for 10 years since birth an entitlement to registration as a British citizen irrespective of the status of his parents.
A great deal of concern was expressed over the descent provisions of clause 2. Under the Bill as introduced, these provisions would have meant that British citizens by naturalisation or registration would not have been able to transmit their citizenship to children born to them overseas. The Government amendment made to clause 2 ensures that citizens by naturalisation or those who are registered after living here would be able to pass on their citizenship on the same terms as citizens by birth here. I am pleased that this amendment has had such a warm welcome from the ethnic minorities.
I would, in passing, draw attention once again to the fact that clause 2 marks a great advance towards equality of the sexes. Women are enabled to pass on citizenship on the same terms as men. They cannot do so now. Elsewhere in the Bill the same approach to the need for equal treatment as between the sexes has been scrupulously observed.
I have already referred to the new clause added to the Bill as clause 4. It gives a right of registration in certain circumstances to citizens of the British dependent territories, British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons. The Government were anxious here, in response to representations, to make it plain beyond doubt that it is no part of the Bill's purpose to diminish the status of people affected by it. This clause greatly enhances that status. It also provides for the possibility in special circumstances of recognising any special claim of Crown servants under the Governments of the dependencies.
We have also responded positively to points put in Committee by the Opposition and by Back Benchers. We readily accepted an amendment which extended from two years to five the transitional period during which Commonwealth citizens settled here since before 1973 could exercise their entitlement to register. The transitional periods during which wives of our citizens might continue to apply for their husbands' citizenship were similarly extended.
These amendments give ample time for people who have entitlements but who are unsure whether they should


claim them to make up their minds. I appreciate that this is not always an easy decision. The countries from which they come may often not permit dual nationality. I can only say that the Bill does not seek to change the position under our law whereby dual nationality is permitted. The Government decided against a change in this area because, as the House will recollect, they were anxious that the members of the minority communties should feel able to settle down here without pressure.
It was with the same wish, that the minority communities should be able to feel secure, that we readily agreed to the suggestion that the Bill should contain a provision against discrimination. That is to be found in clause 41(1), and represents, I maintain, a highly important statement of the Government's policy in this regard.
We have shown our willingness to respond to the concern expressed by people from this country who have gone abroad to work and who are anxious that their children born abroad should not encounter difficulties in transmitting their citizenship. We have proposed amendments to clause 3 so that British citizens by descent in a much wider range of employment will now be able to secure British citizenship for their children. We have brought forward provisions which will extend the effect of the present arrangements for consular registration for five years after commencement. We believe that the Bill ensures that British citizens by descent who have continuing links with the United Kingdom should have no difficulty in securing citizenship for their children born overseas.
These amendments have been part of a substantial number which we have brought forward on Report and which reflect the consideration that we have given to the Bill in the light of the detailed discussion in Committee. Many reflect the efforts of members of the Standing Committee on both sides. We appreciate what they have done to draw our attention to deficiencies that we have sought to cure. There are those who criticise my absence from the Standing Committee, but I pay tribute to all those who took part in its proceedings and who played a substantial part in improving the Bill in many of the ways that I have set out.
The Bill leaves the House for another place much improved, obviously, since its introduction. Nevertheless, its main effect remains what it was on introduction. As I have made clear throughout our discussions, our major purpose, which has gained wide acceptance in the House and in the country, is to create a British citizenship based on the principle that citizenship should carry with it the right of abode in this country. It should thereby provide a precise definition of those who belong to this country and are part of it. This will benefit the whole community. It will in particular benefit the vast majority of the ethnic minorities in this country, who will share in the benefits of British citizenship. The Bill, as I have said before, is not racist and it is not sexist. It will end much of the uncertainty which has harmed our race relations in the past. For many years we have needed a reform of our nationality law—everyone accepts that. I have no doubt that the Government were right to have the courage to introduce the Bill and to press it through with

determination. It lays the foundations for a secure future for all our citizens, and I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

Mr. Hattersley: When the Bill was debated on Second Reading on 28 January, I said that it contained provisions to which the Opposition objected in principle. I made predictions about its passage through Committee. I claim no credit for the accuracy of my predictions, because it was obvious to everyone that the Committee stage would be prolonged, that our proceedings would eventually be limited by a guillotine motion, and that the Bill which emerged from Committee would remain unacceptable to the Opposition. Thanks to the guillotine motion, and thanks to the attitude of Conservative Members and the Whips who control their behaviour, the Bill emerged from Committee largely in the form in which it entered it.
I fear that my predictions—and I draw no pleasure from saying this—turned out to be true. There were only two exceptions, which were strangely announced by the Government between the completion of Second Reading and the beginning of the Committee stage. The Government have made no major concessions on the Bill. There have been some adjustments. In a couple of instances time has been extended from two years to five years. Pressure from Conservative Members and others meant that an adjustment was made concerning second generation British children born overseas. But the fundamental position remains unaltered and the fundamental principle remains unacceptable to the Opposition. That is why the next Labour Government will repeal the Bill and replace it with a more acceptable measure. We shall replace it by a measure—[Interruption.] Does the Home Secretary wish to speak? I am always willing to give way to him if he has a point of detail, in which he specialises, to put to me. If he has not, I shall continue with my speech outlining the position of the Opposition.
We shall replace the Bill when it becomes an Act with a measure that accepts that Britain is a multi-racial society, and which respects the rights and the feelings of the ethnic minorities within that multi-racial society. I do not believe that anybody who looks at the Bill objectively and with understanding can believe that it recognises our multiracial society or understands the feelings of the ethnic minorities within it.
I accept that the Bill has been improved in two material ways since it left the House on Second Reading. First, the original intention to distinguish between British citizens by birth and British citizens by registration and naturalisation, thus creating two different classes of British citizens, has been removed. That is a wholly welcome change. Because of that change, the proposal that children born overseas to British subjects should have British citizenship only if their parents were British by birth, rather than British by registration or naturalisation, has been removed. I very much welcome that change, although I remain astonished that the alternative was ever proposed and perplexed about why the Government changed their mind within 48 hours of the Bill being debated in the House. Notwithstanding that, I welcome the change as a major improvement.
Equally, I am glad—one can hardly be jubilant—about the slight modification to the changes originally proposed in the rights to citizenship for children born here. Certainly the Government's original proposal to abolish the rule


which had applied for 700 years that every child born in Britain should be British has been slightly modified. But the modification is marginal at best, and trivial at worst. The basic change that the Government proposed on 28 January remains—namely, the abandonment of the principle that every child born in Britain is inalienably and unquestionably British.
The fact that that principle has been breached is in itself enough to justify our outright opposition to the Bill. It is one of those instances where the Government's White Paper differs from the Opposition's Green Paper, and where the principles of the two parties are in absolute conflict.
The abandonment of the principle that every child born here should be British in itself justifies our opposition because of the injustice that it will do to children denied British citizenship and the uncertainty that it will cause to a much larger number of children and eventually adults who, although British by birth, will be required for the first time in our history to demonstrate their British status.
We debated that point at great length yesterday. We then went on, yesterday and again today, to discuss the related matter of men and women entitled to British citizenship who might be denied it, but who would neither know why their applications for British citizenship had been denied nor be provided with any opportunity to question the decisions made about their lives and their future.
I must repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and I and others have said throughout the discussion of the Bill. When a measure is introduced to replace that which we are now debating, it will include a list of criteria which qualify a person for British citizenship infinitely more precise than those in schedule 1. By such provision, applicants will be able to know how a person becomes British, why that status is denied when denial is imposed, and we shall provide a proper opportunity for the unsuccessful applicant to appeal against the decision.
Having said those things about British citizenship and the inadequacies in the Bill in those particulars, I do not wish the House to believe for a moment that our only objection to its provisions concerns the main category of citizenship, that is to say, full British citizenship, on which so much of our debate has been focused. The Opposition sought throughout the Committee proceedings to express the strongest possible opposition to both the definition and the operation of the other categories of citizenship in the Bill, that is to say, citizenship of the British dependent territories and British overseas citizenship. That remains our position.
At the beginning of the Committee stage, citizenship of the British dependent territories was described as an umbrella status which covered and, by implication, protected all the dependencies listed in the Bill, from the teeming city State of Hong Kong to British Antarctica where there were no citizens to have any citizenship. It was suggested that that single status embraced all the people in every dependency, but as we debated what that status meant it became ever clearer that the citizens of the individual dependencies would have no rights outside the single colony in which they lived and indeed their rights of entry to and egress from that single colony would be decided by the edicts of the individual colonial Governments.
In our view, that remains an unsatisfactory state of affairs. What the Bill should have included and what a Bill will include is a status for individual dependent territories which meets their particular needs rather than the pretence that there can be a single status encompassing the needs of territories of very different kinds in very different political conditions.
I proposed to say that we were equally dissatisfied with British overseas citizenship, but to do that would be to admit that it is a citizenship at all. What was said on Second Reading, namely, that British overseas citizenship is not a citizenship but a subterfuge, has been confirmed as the debates on this condition have continued. Indeed, believing the phrase to be pejorative. I described British overseas citizen status as a residual condition into which British subjects, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies would be fitted when the Government could think of nothing else to do with them. To my astonishment, the phrase "residual citizenship" seems to have passed into ministerial folklore. It was used time after time by the Minister of State in Committee, and again yesterday and the day before. A residual citizenship it certainly is.
The notion of a residual citizenship seems to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends to be wrong. This residual condition confers virtually no rights on those who are allocated it. The only claim that the Government make is that they will give some consular protection. In the pursuit of the details in Committee, we discovered that not even complete consular protection is to be provided for citizens within this category. For all those reasons, we oppose the Bill, and we shall continue to do so.
A supplementary but important reason for my opposition to the Bill—notwithstanding all the difficulties that are implied, I should be wrong not to report it to the House—is its failure to take the opportunity which it provides to make amends to the East African Asians to whom the Government, the House and the country broke a promise in 1968, men and women who in their time were promised entry into the United Kingdom when the African States in which they lived became independent.
I repeat, with no pleasure, that that promise was broken in 1968. I take my share of blame for its breaking. I voted for the relevant Bill. I was a member of the Government who introduced it. However, I have no doubt that that measure was wrong. In the new circumstances of a new British Nationality Act it is possible to redeem the promise that was then broken.
The Government, like their immediate predecessors, are committed to the entry of all the East African Asians into the United Kingdom. They are committed to the special voucher scheme. Those to whom the promise was broken 13 years ago will come here gradually if the scheme is properly and honourably observed. That which divides us is the belief that is held on the Opposition Benches that the error made and the mistake committed in earlier years should be formally rectified by the announcement that the East African Asians will be allowed in, not according to the special voucher scheme, but now and granted British citizenship now.
It is never easy for a member of an old Administration to say that something for which he voted and which he supported was wrong, and wrong at the time. However, I believe that to be so about the 1968 Act. Embarrassing


though it may be, it is my duty to say that to the House. I hope that we can proceed speedily to take an opportunity to correct that error and to put that injustice right.
I welcome two of the changes that appear in the Bill. The Opposition are glad that the new provisions allow the transmission of British citizenship through the female line. We are glad that by implication, by the operation of the principles on which the Bill is based, we have virtually abandoned the objectionable definition of patriality. I cannot share the Home Secretary's joy that sexual equality has been introduced by providing for husbands the same right previously enjoyed by wives.
I support the view that equality is right, but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that equality has been achieved only by diminishing the rights of one group and by slightly increasing the rights of the other. I must remind him that since the right of wives to acquire British citizenship depends on a period of residence in this country, and since under his edicts it grows increasingly difficult for Asian women to enter the United Kingdom and begin to acquire those rights, the advantage that he offers is more theoretical than practical.
There is another feature of the Bill that in a sense is welcome though it would have been intolerable if it had not been included. I refer to the maintenance of the right of citizens now resident here to enjoy the nationality status that would have been offered them before the Bill was introduced and before it is passed into law.
There is a great deal of disquiet among the ethnic minority communities because of the unjustifiable fear that for some men and women presently resident here their rights to British citizenship will be removed. I promise the Home Secretary and the House that I shall do my best to remove that fear. My simple request to the Home Secretary is to use the resources at his disposal and the authority that he possesses continually to broadcast the message that a man or woman who applied for British citizenship a year ago and who is still waiting for it will not find that his or her condition has been changed or rights removed. I know that such a provision is not in the Bill and is not in the Home Secretary's mind; it was never his intention. Nevertheless, the fear exists and we all have a duty to spread the truth as far as possible and to quieten that fear.
I shall comment on what can only be described as the Bill's spirit. The Opposition are opposed to its spirit, because it does not encourage the creation of the multiracial society that we want to see. I shall repeat something that I have said many times since 28 January, namely, that whatever the Home Secretary's intentions—I have said once and will gladly repeat that I make no allegations about his intentions, because I have no doubt that he has no racist principles or prejudices—the Bill that he has introduced and commended so warmly will fall hardest on and affect most the ethnic minorities. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's intention, the results are prejudicial and prejudiced and their outcome is racial. As a result, the necessity for repeal and replacement is all the greater, not least because the Bill is largely based not on Government theories about nationality, but on Government fears about immigration.
On Second Reading, I said that this was not a nationality Bill, but, in many ways, an immigration protection Bill. I tried to justify that contention by making

quotations from the White Paper that I shall not weary the House with tonight. Time after time in Committee that contention was substantiated by the Minister's replies to amendments. The Minister claimed that the British nationality of an illegitimate child—for whom there was a putative father who was prepared to say that he was the father and could demonstrate his British citizenship—would have unacceptable consequences in terms of those entitled to enter and settle here. Those who have read the reports of our Committee proceedings will know that much of the justification for the Bill concerns not the theory of nationality but the practice of immigration. That has overshadowed all our discussions and has deeply disturbed the ethnic minorities and made them increasingly insecure.
The ethnic minorities have also been disturbed by the way in which the Government have discussed the issue of immigration. Throughout discussion on the Bill, immigration and the existence of the children and grandchildren of immigrants—who are no longer immigrants but British—have been spoken of by the Government in terms of a problem. The subject has sometimes been discussed as a problem in the crudest terms. From Northampton, North to Down, South it has been discussed as a problem of the type that can be described only in the grossest language. Occasionally it has been discussed in compassionate terms. Indeed, the Minister of State and the Home Secretary discussed it in those terms. Whether spoken of in a crude or compassionate way, the existence of the ethnic minorities and the immigrants have always been described by the Government as a difficulty, a problem and a liability.
Some of us believe that the ethnic minorities are not a liability to the United Kingdom. In many ways they contribute to our lives. Such people exist as equal citizens, with equal rights, duties and responsibilities. When a new nationality Bill is introduced, it must recognise and rejoice in that fact. That is why we shall vote against Third Reading, and that is why, when the time comes, we shall introduce a new Bill to replace this one.

Sir Paul Bryan: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware that I have taken a special interest in the Bill from the point of view of Hong Kong. Whatever its final effects on the people of Hong Kong, whatever their continuing worries about it, they are extremely grateful for the full hearing that their case has received from Ministers over a long period, and from hon. Members in Committee.
Well before the Bill was introduced the Minister of State went to Hong Kong to get the views of the people there at first hand. At about the time of Second Reading, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary received the leaders of the Hong Kong executive and legislative councils to hear and to discuss their objections to the Bill at length. At the beginning of the Committee stage, two members of the Committee went to Hong Kong to hear views and the knowledge that they gained there was of great help to the Committee.
That the extensive consultations were not merely a public relations exercise is proved by the changes that have taken place since the publication of the Green Paper, which proposed only two categories of citizenship and would have thrown the people of Hong Kong into company with many millions of others with far less close


connections with this country. The extra category, introduced in the White Paper and the Bill, of citizens of British dependent territories was created mainly for the benefit of the Hong Kong population, which constitutes about 90 per cent. of that category.
As a result of the consultations, the important clause 4 was introduced in Committee. It put right the justified complaint that the requirement in the original Bill of naturalisation instead of registration had severely eroded the rights of Hong Kong citizens. The clause has also done everything possible to strengthen the position of those who serve the Crown so admirably in Hong Kong, including those giving voluntary service to the Crown.
Let me sum up the opinion in Hong Kong at this late stage of the Bill. There is broad agreement and understanding about the main purpose of introducing the Bill, namely, to tidy up and clarify the existing position and to incorporate into a single piece of legislation the succession of measures that have so radically changed the long-standing concepts of nationality and immigration since 1948.
But the point should be recorded that although there have been changes in relation to Hong Kong, the constitutional relationship with Britain has not changed since 1948. The passage of the Bill through the House has been widely followed in Hong Kong and, as its full implication has become clear, it has come as something as a shock to the people there. Many still wonder what is the real significance of replacing long-standing terms such as "British subject" and "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" with new terms such as "citizen of British dependent territories."
Although, as we keep assuring the people of Hong Kong, the change is intended to be of no political significance, it is not surprising that those who are so deeply affected by the measures should continue to ask why the changes are being made and whether the effect is not to take away their British nationality.
I understand that there are good practical legal and administrative reasons for the changes and I accept the need for them, but for all the reasons that I have given we should not be surprised that misunderstanding and even suspicion of the Government have been generated.
Moreover, there may be practical implications. The question arises whether those in the new category of citizens of British dependent territories will be accorded the same treatment when visiting third countries as they received when they were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Of course, the people in Hong Kong understand that they will continue to have no right of abode in the United Kingdom. These doubts can largely be put at rest if, in winding up, the Minister of State could give assurances on three points.
First, will he state that nothing will change in the relationship and commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the people of Hong Kong? Secondly, will he undertake that although they will become citizens of the British dependent territories they will remain British in the sense that Her Majesty's Government will continue to have the right and, indeed, the commitment to afford to them consular and other help in third countries? Thirdly, will he undertake that Her Majesty's Government will do their best to ensure that the new citizenship descriptions are fully understood in third countries so that CBDTs travelling as British passport holders will not encounter

difficulties with immigration authorities abroad? I and, I am sure, the people of Hong Kong would be grateful if these assurances could be given.

Mr. David Steel: In his otherwise excellent speech the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) omitted one important feature of our proceedings: we are not left with the choice simply of a vote at the end of the debate tonight or the repeal of the legislation by a future Government. There is the completion of the Bill through its stages in the other House still to come. I know that may be a matter of embarrassment to the Labour Benches, but this is a good example of how our bicameral system could act as a protector of individual rights.
I shall join in a moment with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) but sometimes in that less disciplined Chamber greater attention may be paid to some of the issues on which we have touched lightly here. I contend that my noble Friends in another place should examine and seek to amend this Bill most thoroughly. Only if they fail in that regard will we fall back—I join with the right hon. Member in this—on the proposition that the legislation will have to be repealed and replaced with something based on sounder principles. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member presses me I will give a free commercial for the new politics but I am going to stick to the main issue of the Bill.
There are two reasons why my colleagues and I will vote against the Bill on Third Reading. First—here I disagree with something the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago—some of the issues have not been fully examined, certainly on the Floor of the House. I accept that those who were privileged to serve on the Standing Committee may have had a chance to discuss them, but either because of the timetable or the selection of amendments, there are substantial issues which have not been discussed in the House. I shall come to them in a moment. The second reason is that of principle.
Taking the first reason, about the issues which are undebated, the hon. Member for Howden has raised one of them. One of the side effects of the Bill which has not been fully understood in this country is that it has provoked widespread international indignation. The Prime Minister herself found this on her visit to the Indian Subcontinent and seemed to be surprised at the strength of feeling. I found it in Hong Kong at about the same time.
The hon. Member for Howden is by nature a mild-mannered Member. He was mild in his criticism and it. his representation of the feelings of the people of Hong Kong. I found deep and genuine resentment. There was no misunderstanding about what the Bill does. It is accepted that it does not technically alter the status of citizens in Hong Kong but there is widespread dismay at the change in nomenclature which they are bound to suffer. The Government have never spelt out what rights attach to the new citizenship of the British dependent territories which they are creating in this legislation. What obligations do the United Kingdom Government accept towards these people which are different from the obligations they accept to British subjects who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies? The description that in future is to be in the passports of our citizens in Hong Kong is one that they deeply deplore. They do not know—nor can we give them

any undertaking about this—what will be the attitude of third countries to such a description. It is a new form of citizenship.
This measure is timed, unfortunately, contemporaneously with the increase in fees for overseas students, which has resulted in a severe drop in the number of students coming from Hong Kong to our institutions of higher learning. They are being diverted to the United States, Canada and elsewhere. When I think that, sadly, these two unconnected measures were taken at the same time, I can understand why feeling among the people of Hong Kong is so deep and resentful. That issue, apart from being referred to in the speech of the hon. Member for Howden, has not been discussed in detail in the House, although it was in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook touched on the second issue which has not been discussed on the Floor of the House, namely, the second category of citizenship created by the Bill, that of overseas citizens. There is the problem of the queue; the problem of the status of the children of people who are waiting in the queue but born overseas; the possible creation of more stateless persons; the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman was honest enough to admit, that that clause entrenches in the main body of our law the emergency measure which was produced in 1968 for which he voted and which I vigorously opposed. We on the Liberal Benches have never accepted the taking away of the rights of citizenship which had been promised by the British Government to certain of our citizens in East Africa, and it is a ground for objection to the Bill that it is repeated in this new statute.
A third subject which has not been debated on the Floor of the House is the rights and obligations of citizenship. That whole issue has been left undiscussed. The Liberals tabled a new clause, hoping for a debate, but it did not happen. The Minister of State, replying to the last amendment we debated tonight, said that those who could not pass the language test would not be able to take up the rights and obligations of citizens. Yet we have had no debate on what those rights and obligations are. Because those issues have not been fully debated here, I hope that they will be fully explored in the other place.
I come to what is far more important—my objections in principle to the passage of the Bill. My first objection is that it increases the arbitrary power of the State over the individual. It is strange to accuse a Conservative Government of this, because members of the Conservative Party are always rushing around, warning the country of the evils of the parties Left of Centre which want to do precisely that. But it is the Conservatives who, by this legislation, are expanding the administrative powers, the arbitrary powers and, perhaps even more important, the secret powers of unnamed, unknown and irresponsible, unaccountable members of the Civil Service who will in practice have to take most of the decisions for which we are legislating.
The Minister of State may heave a great sigh at this thought, but there are bound to be still more cases on which he will receive letters from Members of Parliament. Those who come to Members of Parliament are the lucky few who will receive the personal scrutiny of the Minister, such as it is. I once worked out the number of seconds each case must receive according to the Minister of State's figures; the attention he gives must be very cursory. In the

main the decisions will be taken by civil servants at different levels, unaccountable to the House and unaccountable to the people whose lives are being affected. This is an unsatisfactory and worrying trend in our legislation. It is a background against which uncertainty, injustice and even harassment will flourish among the ethnic minorities. That is our first objection of principle to the Bill.
Our second objection has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Whether the Government like it or not the Bill is racial in effect, if not in intention. It has created a climate of opinion which has pandered to people's worst prejudices.

Mr. Michael Mates: The right hon. Member has done that.

Mr. Steel: I shall enlarge on that, if I may. The Bill has pandered to people's worst prejudices while the Government have hypocritically pretended that it has been introduced to ensure good relations.

Mr. Mates: The right hon. Member has created such a climate.

Mr. Steel: I have been amazed at some of the speeches made on Report by Conservatives Members. Many of the comments which have been made about the Bill have not come from what are normally regarded as Left-wing sources. I shall quote from the Financial Times. Some Conservative Members may be familiar with that publication. It may be pink in colour, but it is not noted for any leanings towards radical political views. It said:
there is much that national politicians can now do to create more trust and confidence in the black community. Many people in Brixton think that the new nationality laws, for one thing, are a move in exactly the opposite direction.
I agree with that.
I shall also quote Mr. Hugo Young in The Sunday Times, who a few weeks ago said:
the urgency behind the bill springs not from any need to rationalise nationality law in this particular way, but from the ugly side of the Conservative Party.
It is the ugly side of the Conservative Party which has been much in evidence during the passage of the Bill. If anyone had any doubt about that, they would only have had to listen to some of the speeches that have been made by Conservative Members in the last few days to be no longer doubtful.

Mr. Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the dangers of creating apprehension in the ethnic minority community. If we are in grave danger of paving the way to a pass law society, as the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday, would not he agree that that is precisely the sort of measure which would create apprehension?

Mr. Steel: The point that I was trying to make yesterday was that the Bill would require greater evidence of documentation of the rights of individual citizens here. No one on the Government Front Bench has denied that. We have been over that ground on Report. After the Bill becomes law, a birth certificate will cease to be proof of citizenship. I am not saying that there will be a pass law society tomorrow, but that gradually and increasingly we are moving towards that situation. That is what I object to. 
I wish to dwell on that point. I have sat in the House for 15 years and I have attended many debates on immigration and race relations. I have noticed a difference which has overcome the Conservative Party. In the 1960s in such debates there were many speeches of the same tone


as in these debates. They were often rebutted by other members of the Conservative Party, who have been noticeable by their silence in these debates.
I remind Conservative Members that when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made his infamous "rivers of blood" speech, he was at least sacked from the Shadow Cabinet by the then leader of the Opposition. Meantime, members of today's Conservative Party are allowed by their leader to make speeches about repatriation and speeches of an offensive tone in the House with no repudiation from the Government Front Bench or the Government Back Benches. I believe that it is the duty of political leadership not to pander to such feelings, but to repudiate them at every possible opportunity.
Another worrying feature of the speeches that have been made in the last few days has been the slighting references to the Churches. The Churches are not in the business of gaining votes and marginal seats. Few people of ethnic minorities are members of the flock by definition, yet the Bill has been condemned by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the British Council of Churches. The Achibishop of Canterbury, despite the two major concessions which were made, for which I give the Home Secretary full credit, said:
although we should welcome these concessions, we must not be deceived into thinking that they alter the basic structure, or the essential character of the Bill.
One used to think of the Church of England as the Tory Party at prayer. It is extraordinary to listen to members of the Conservative Party denouncing the clergy in the language that they have used over the last few days.
I repeat that we shall oppose the Bill tonight. We shall oppose it in the other place and, when the time comes, it will be repealed.

Mr. John Stokes: I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), whose constituency is not far from mine, and I wondered whether he would have made that speech in the same terms in his own constituency and what sort of reception it would have got. I shall refer to only one remark that he made which was particularly silly. The right hon. Gentleman said that immigration into Britain was not a problem. If he believes that, he will believe anything.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was the same speech that I have heard him make for many years. The notable thing about the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is that immigrants are conspicuously absent from it. He speaks not from first-hand knowledge but from Liberal dictum and theory.
There is much talk in the Bill of close connections with this country. But surely the closest connection of all—for example, for someone who has been living in England for some time—is to be a member of that race which has inhabited this island for hundreds of years and has given its name to our country. That fact seems too obvious to need to be stated. To omit all mention of race in a nationality Bill is like seeing the play "Hamlet" without the Prince.
I believe that it shows how poor old John Bull has been put on the rack, if not emasculated, by race relations

pressure and humbug. It is as if we in this Chamber were legislating ourselves out of existence and as if the English race will in future exist only as a quaint survival in literature produced for the British Tourist Board.
This is one of the most extraordinary Bills ever to be brought before the House. Any Englishman who died before 1950 and who came back to this life now would find the Bill quite incomprehensible. So would all our ancestors. I have no doubt that the Bill is well meaning, but I believe that largely it will be ineffective. It offers some feeble protection to our own race here and there, but in the main it confirms the principle which is so highly attractive to the Labour Party, namely, that almost anyone can be a candidate to become a British citizen.
Incidentally, the Bill prefers the word "citizen"—I regard that as a French, revolutionary, citoyen or non-royalist word for a kingdom—to the word "subject". After all, the word "subject" has historical connotations in Britain and the Bill goes against much of our history. In addition, the word "subject" means allegiance and loyalty, something about which the Opposition ought to learn.
It is also amazing that nowhere in the Bill do the words "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "Irish" appear, although I am afraid that there is too frequent reference to the "Republic of Ireland". Everyone knows the reason for that. It is that the newcomers we are admitting into our island can never in the true sense of the words become Englishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen. Fortunately, the Government can fall back on the word "British", which today can mean almost anything.
Amid the laughter, which will not be particularly well received by the vast mass of our people, I make my last protest at the Bill, which will further dilute our national stock. I am conscious that my words will be echoed by millions of people outside this place who never consented to mass immigration and were never consulted about it. I believe that in generations to come the reports of the debates on the Bill will be carefully studied. By that time Scotland and Wales will still probably have a majority of their own race living in those countries. However, in parts of England such as London and the Midlands, it is possible that the English will be outnumbered by the newcomers. What we once knew of England with its long and glorious history will be no more than a shadow.
I do not know whether there will be violent and bloody clashes between the races such as we have seen unfortunately in Bristol and Brixton and the other clay near to London, but inevitably I fear that tensions will build up and the immigrants will become a large proportion of the population.
Integration is a myth, and we all know it. No self-respecting and proud immigrant wants to be integrated into this country. I believe that the Bill is the culmination of 30 years of wishy-washy do-gooding and slip-shod thinking. The test of a nation in the end, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said on a number of occasions, is its citizens' willingness to fight for it. Will the newcomers of dual nationality fight for our Sovereign or will the loyalties to their own homelands still prove too strong? No one knows. That is one of the many questions which the Bill does not answer. Our duty here, our duty to our constituents and our duty to our country is to advise as best we can, and, above all, to warn. In the end history will say who was right.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I do not intend to waste time answering any part of the despicable speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. (Mr. Stokes).
We now come to the end of the debates on a Bill that we can only call a sad and bad Bill. All the speeches that we have heard in the House week after week about building good community relations in the different communities throughout the country fades into meaningless talk against the background of the Bill. I do not think that anyone disagrees that the present nationality laws are in a hell of a mess and need clarifying. No one can believe that the proposals in the Bill will do anything towards clarifying the mess of those nationality laws. One understands the different community groups expressing their opposition to the Bill, but many sections of society have expressed not only their concern but their outright opposition to the Bill's proposals.
Many hon. Members represent large city areas, as I do. Irrespective of whether those hon. Members sit on the Opposition or Government Benches, we try week after week to build good community relations within the constituencies that we represent. We try to impress on people who now live here their obligation to have a responsibility to our society because it is now part of their society and because this country is now their home. Unfortunately, Many Conservative Members never seem to understand that. We try in the best way we can to make people feel part of this country, but as they become aware of the various aspects of the Bill to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has already referred, they realise that life here will become even more difficult for them. At the same time, our task will become even more difficult.
In my constituency in south London there will be many people who, over the next few weeks, will say to me "We have been telling you for a long time that in the eyes of the Government we are second class citizens. The legislation that has been discussed in Parliament over the past weeks has shown us that what we have long believed is taking place".
The Bill is yet another aspect of the kind of legislation that has been introduced in this Parliament in recent times. There are women who may have been born in Asia but have lived in this country for almost the whole of their lives. They face restrictions if they want to marry a man who was not born in this country. We hear endless remarks about immigrants. What an affront that is to people who have lived here for 20 or 30 years and who are decent, honest, law-abiding men and women. They always hear themselves described as immigrants. Tonight we have heard a new phrase—"the newcomers". After living here for 20 or 30 years, they are now to be described as newcomers. There are the never-ending demands from the Conservative Benches for what they call a rigorous policy of voluntary repatriation.
The House should remember the tragic events that took place in Brixton not long ago. Many things contributed to those events, such as unemployment, the lack of decent housing, and the general environment in which people have to live. But whenever I speak to people who live in Brixton or in my constituency they say "what we object to in this country is that, because we are black or brown, we are not shown respect". That is what the House must

begin to understand. I hope that Lord Scarman will also begin to understand that the one thing that these people are seeking and are entitled to is respect in the country that is now their home.
The language test is another affront to people. In many parts of the country there are people who came here from Eastern Europe. I have such people in my constituency. Many of them still cannot speak very good English. Is it suggested that before they can qualify for citizenship, those people must take an English test? The Home Office must be aware of the problems that a language test will create. It must be aware of the enormous fear that it will create in many families when—

Mr. Raison: The people from Eastern Europe to whom the hon. Gentleman has just referred have always had to pass a language test in order to acquire our citizenship.

Mr. Cox: In that case, it is time it was removed. We should look closely at the kind of test that is proposed in the Bill for people with a scant knowledge of the English language. The proposal will do nothing to help people feel that they form part of our society. Yet we are told time and again that this is the sort of atmosphere that is needed.
The same criticism can be levelled against the good character requirement. It may seem meaningless. It may be assumed that so long as people are law-abiding, that they have not been in trouble with the police, and that they are hard working, there will be no problems. I am certain, however, that when communities in this country start to examine what is proposed in detail they will have the feeling that they are being singled out.
I turn to what I believe is the most important part of the Bill. I still do not believe that the issue has been fully discussed. I refer to the question of children who are born here. The requirement proposed by the Government is that after a 10-year period these children will have a right to seek British nationally provided that they have not been out of the country for more than 90 days in any one year, but the Minister of State must be aware that one of the characteristics of families from Asia living here is that young children go back to spend a certain time with relatives. What happens, for instance, if the child, while away, becomes ill and is out of the country for 90 days? Will that count against the qualification? 
One of the tests for some types of employment, certainly Government employment, is that of British nationality. Many children, especially in the Asian community, are encouraged by their parents to work hard at school. Are they now to be told that because they have been out of the country for more than 90 days— whatever their academic achievement—these job opportunities will be closed to them? Such a decision would be felt deeply within many communities
Hon. Members who make comments obviously do not represent constituencies where this Bill is a crucial issue. It affects people who genuinely try to be good citizens and who try to work for the benefit of the society in which they live. The remarks made from the Conservative Benches will cause enormous damage. Anyone who seriously considers this subject tries to set at ease the real fears that exist among communities here. Opposition Members have fought day after day in Committee and will continue to fight against the Bill and the evil proposals that it contains.
The assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook that the Bill will be


repealed and replaced by legislation that is fair and meaningful will give hope to communities for the kind of society in which we wish to live.

Mr. Edward Gardner: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, this is an important Bill. It is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever passed through the House. As we all know, it is of critical importance not only to citizens of this country but to millions of people overseas. It sweeps away the absurdities, anomalies and deficiencies of old laws that were introduced by the post-war Labour Government, dating back to the days of Empire.
Perhaps most important, because this is its principle aim—and should be recognised as such—it gives us as citizens of this country something that we have for too long needed, namely, a single and separate citizenship, an individual nationality. Once the Bill is enacted we shall no longer be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies; we shall be in law and in fact what indeed we are—British citizens.
For those reasons alone, I congratulate the Government. In particular, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his courage in stepping into this legislative minefield and doing what no other Home Secretary has dared to do for the past 33 years.
I like to think—I hope that this will not be misunderstood—that the decision of the Government, and of the Home Secretary in particular, was encouraged and made possible by the opinion and pressure of Conservative Back Benchers. It is appropriate to say that after last night's television film "The Westminster Man", in which Members of Parliament, both present and past, gave what appeared to be their views of the role of the Back Bencher. More than half of them did not appear to think much of that role. They regarded the voice of the Back Bencher as a voice in the wilderness of frustration. I hope that the fact that the Bill was introduced and has progressed under the influence of Back-Bench opinion, as it has, will do something to balance the picture.

Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the Bill was influenced by the views of the Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), or will he take this opportunity to repudiate those views, which were certainly odious to most decent-minded hon. Members but seemed to be endorsed by every Conservative Member?

Mr. Gardner: I hope that Back Benchers will always have the right to entertain their own views and will continue to do that.
I do not say that this is perfect legislation. I do not think that any legislation that deals with nationality can escape criticism from someone, or from groups of people. That would be too much to expect. It is good legislation. I want it to leave the House without any deficiencies or blemishes, and without any real grounds for criticism.
However, there is one ground for criticism that I wish to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. It was raised on Report, and I take leave to mention it again now. I and many other hon. Members—56 signed an early-day motion about the matter today—wish to remove a serious defect in the Bill. I want the Government to ensure that when it goes to another place it is amended so

that British citizens who were born abroad, and whose birth was registered abroad, will retain the right to transmit their nationality to children born abroad. I do not want any diminution or qualification of that right.
The Bill interferes with, and ultimately extinguishes, that right. That is wrong. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage and help any attempts made in another place to put the matter right. It is not an insuperable problem, and it is one that many'believe should be cured.

10.21

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The leader of the Liberal Party put his finger on the saddest aspect of the debate, namely, that during the past three days we have heard a number of purely racialist speeches from Conservative Members. I remember entering the House in 1966. I remember one or two racialist speeches, but there was always another Conservative Member ready to stand up and repudiate what his colleague had said. That has not happened during the past three days of debate. That is symptomatic of the new leadership of the Conservative Party, which tends to encourage racialist thinking. The Prime Minister herself made that sort of speech shortly before the general election.
Everyone agrees that there was a need to revise the nationality law, but this is a bad Bill because it attempts to frame a new nationality law to conform to an existing immigration policy. Clause 1(1) will take away the right of British citizenship from some who were born in Britain. As the Government's immigration policy clearly has racialist undertones, it is inevitable that the Bill will be seen to have racialist undertones.
There is no doubt that the Bill has aroused a great deal of opposition and suspicion among the ethnic minority communities. An example is the refusal to grant rights of appeal. Many people will believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Minister intends to use his discretionary power as yet another adjunct of his immigration policy.
I regret that the Bill was introduced in this form. It has already caused serious harm to race relations in Britain, and it will cause even more harm when its provisions are put into practice. There are other hon. Members who wish to speak. I hope that the House will refuse to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Having served on the Standing Committee for three and a half months and having considered the Bill for some 140 hours, I had something of a surprise when I heard some Opposition Members talking about the Bill with such apparent knowledge when they had not been in the Chamber throughout the Report stage and had turned up this evening simply to make what I can only conclude is some kind of party speech.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for what he has said tonight and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who made a notable contribution to the work of Parliament in the way in which he conducted the Bill throughout the proceedings in Committee.
I take this opportunity to agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in what he said about the duty that we all have to make it clear to the people of this country, particularly to the members


of the ethnic minority who have applied for British citizenship, that the Bill will in no way disturb their applications. I regard that as a duty upon me which I shall carry out, and I know that other hon. Members will also wish to carry it out.
I also emphasise the point so ably made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) concerning those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose children have been born overseas and who, it appears, through a quirk of the drafting of the Bill, will lose the right to transmit their nationality to their children. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will look at this problem again. As he knows, it is one which worries many people who work overseas and whose children have been born overseas. The extension of consular registration for a further five years, welcome though it is, has not extinguished those fears entirely. I believe that we should take steps, before the Bill passes from Parliament altogether, to try to improve that provision still further and to set at rest the minds of people who are understandably worried on that score.
The notable feature of the Bill for the ethnic minority community is the fact that people settled in the United Kingdom will know for sure that their children will be entitled to British citizenship irrespective of whether their parents have chosen to take British citizenship by registration. That is an important feature of the Bill.
I think that all those who have taken a keen interest in the Bill will welcome the fact that it clearly defines our citizenship. I do not claim—nor do I think that any hon. Member would claim—that the Bill is perfect, because very few Bills that pass through Parliament are perfect. Nevertheless, I think that we can claim that we have improved the Bill at all stages, in Committee and during the past few days on Report, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State moved some vitally important amendments affecting the lives of those of our citizens who work overseas and who do so much to promote British interests abroad. I hope that that will not be overlooked, because the amendments moved yesterday by my hon. Friend were very significant indeed and will do a great deal to overcome many of the problems about which our fellow citizens, particularly those living in Europe, have written to us over the past months. Any colleagues who served on the Standing Committee will know that we have had a very heavy postbag on that subject. I believe that we have largely dealt with that problem, with the single exception of the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde.
Therefore, although there are differences between hon. Members on both sides about certain nuances and certain parts of the Bill, I hope that we can at least unite together in a determination to do our best to explain to our citizens how the Bill will operate and the benefits that it will bring to all sections of the community. I have no doubt that as the Bill passes through another place further changes will be made and we shall be able to consider them in due course. I welcome the opportunity to consider them, and I am grateful for the opportunity that I have had to participate in deliberations on the Bill as it has passed through Parliament.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) powerfully made the case against the Bill in its present state. However, with an issue of this importance there is a responsibility upon us that transcends the normal party division.
The Bill will have an effect on the lives of each one of us, but inevitably there will be a great many of us—perhaps as many as 95 per cent. of the population—for whom it will raise no qualms. After the Bill is enacted a British Citizen will have all the rights, all the obligations and all the privileges that now attach to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who is patrial. That means most of us. All those who were born in this country will be British citizens.
We must say clearly to those who have worries about the Bill that most of the other 5 per cent. of the community who came to the United Kingdom from abroad in recent years, or were born to those who came from abroad, will have British citizenship. Whatever our criticism of the Bill, we should not increase the alarm and anxiety that they see for their future status by pretending otherwise. The majority of the black community will be British citizens after the Bill is enacted. If they have a British passport now and they have been here for more than five years they will be British.
Those who are not British after the Bill is enacted will have the right either to acquire British citizenship by registration or by naturalisation. If they came before 1 January 1973 and they came from the Commonwealth, they will have the right, within the next five years, to get that registration automatically. I wish that that had continued for the rest of their lives, and I see no reason why it should not. However, if they feel anxious about their status, they can use that right if they use it within the next five years. If they came after 1 January 1973 their rights are not very different from the rights that they will have under the Bill anyway. Since 1 January 1973 they have had to acquire citizenship by undergoing the character test and by passing the language test. To call it naturalisation rather than registration is no great departure.
Therefore, we should tell the great majority of black people in the United Kingdom that they will either have the citizenship of this country or will be able to acquire it in a way that is no worse than it was before the Bill.
That having been said, it is unfortunate that there should be such defects in the Bill as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook described so well. The most important defect, and the one that I think will cause the greatest trouble, is the refusal to apply the general right of birth in this country as a prerequisite of citizenship here. It will not affect a great many in the future. Not a great many more people would have become citizens if the concession had been made. However, the Bill will raise the status of the parents of children who might fall into that category and, therefore, it calls into question the status of some who are settled here but who have not yet acquired citizenship here. That might involve a considerable number of the black population.
In that sense, the Bill is—as I said yesterday—an unexploded time-bomb, which may have considerable repercusssions. I deeply regret that, because it was unnecessary to make that qualification. However, the fact


that the Bill gives that reassurance—subject to that major qualification—to so many of the black community heralds a marked advance on the late 1960s.
Several of my colleagues have criticised the Conservative Party's change of character. Too many of the new Conservative intake think that votes are to be picked up by reiterating the outworn speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). There are not many such hon. Members. The Government have learnt that the power of the black community is a reality in voting terms. It is reflected in election results. It is right that it should be. The idea that one can take away the right to vote from a substantial proportion of our people involves not only electoral niceties but the question of where power lies in our society. Such people pay their taxes, live here, and are part of our community, and it is right that they should exercise that degree of electoral muscle.
The Government have recognised that in this dispute power lies with the black community. As a result, they recognise that they must do justice to it. I am glad that they have come to the conclusion that they could not go on with the absurd racist proposal that was orginally contained in the Bill, that there could be two types of British citizen—one who could go abroad and have a child who would be considered a British citizen and one who could go abroad and have a child who would not be considered a British citizen. Whatever Conservative Members may say, that measure was racist. It has been dropped because of the massive response of the black community and of much of the white community.
In the late 1960s it would have been difficult to mount such a response. I remember 1976 well. Even then it was difficult to get that public response to such a racist initiative. Whether or not Conservative Members like it, not only are black people here; they are accepted by the great majority of our people as part of our multi-racial society. In addition, they understand that we are not only a multi-racial but a multi-cultural society, in which the diversity of culture is an asset to the country. They want it to work. It might not. As the right hon. Member for Down, South incessantly says, there may be an outbreak of violence. If bad men will it, there will be badness. There is a challenge to create a multi-racial society that is a genuine expression of the unity of diverse people with diverse cultures, who can come together to create a multi-culture that is an expression of the whole but that retains the identity of the individual. If that is achieved, there will be a harmony, peace and fulfilment that will enhance what is British in this country.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) kept talking about "us" and about "the British" and "the English". Every black kid born in his constituency is "us", and British. If the hon. Gentleman denies that he is such because he is descended from an immigrant, he must deny that those who made Marks and Spencer the most successful British store are British. They are descended from immigrants. Some hon. Members are descended from immigrants. Some are citizens of Canada, but they are part of the total community that the hon. Gentleman regards as "us".
The only reason why the hon. Gentleman talks about newcomers in order to distinguish them from us is that some people will be black. The pigmentation of the skin makes not a jot of difference to the capacity of people to live together. The only thing that makes a difference is the

intensity of feeling about a diverse culture, and that is spurred on by the sort of speech made by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge.
I am glad that we have gone through the process of defining our own citizenship. I do not regard that as racialist. When I was a Minister I tried to propound the principles on which it ought to be done. They were not vastly different from what the Government have accepted. I am sorry that the Government have introduced defects into that concept, but it was necessary and right that we should define our citizenship and should not be ashamed that at last, we—the only country in the world that did not have a citizenship—should have taken that step.
I am upset that, as a result of the history since 1948, we should have found that there were some who could not join us in that citizenship or in the reality of a citizenship of independent Colonies. They are not citizens anywhere. I refer to the East African Asians and the 130,000 Malaysians.
It is deeply regrettable that those people are not citizens in any real sense. The Commonwealth ought to face the serious problem of what should be done about the Malaysians. There is no problem about the East African Asians. The Government accept their responsibility to take them, though I wish that the Minister of State had said that he would take them in faster than he proposes to do. But they will come in due course.
The Malaysians are a blot on the proper application of the Bill and a blot on our Commonwealth relationships. I hope that the Commonwealth will face that problem and ensure that those people also have a real citizenship.

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) made a reasoned speech, which was in stark contrast to the contributions of his colleagues who were trying to avoid putting facts before their emotions.
The Opposition, the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party have been severely critical of the Bill. The Opposition say that it is a racialist measure which will be a cause of grievance to the New Commonwealth and the Pakistani immigrant community in this country and that the grievance will automatically provoke a reaction and cause trouble. We must ask which came first—the trouble or the invented grievance—to explain away not only the existing troubles but, regrettably, future troubles.
The Bill contains no grievance, racial or otherwise, for loyal, law-abiding British citizens. I do not believe that it should be made a scapegoat—in addition to that vogue word "deprivation"—for lawlessness on the streets of our big cities.
The Opposition forget, as they forgot throughout the Report stage, the reassurance contained in the Bill, for the indigenous population—not total, but at least partial reassurance—that they will no longer share their citizenship with millions around the world, as has been the case since 1948, with all the consequences that that entailed for our country—namely, mass migrations for three decades from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan and the dreadful and inevitable racial strife of which we see evidence weekly, if not yet daily, in metropolitan London and elsewhere.
The Opposition claim that the Bill is an immigration control measure. They argue, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) argued tonight, that that is the reason why I and some of my right hon. and


hon. Friends support it. Alas, if immigration control were to be the criterion for support or otherwise of the Bill it would fall far short of what is required in all the circumstances.
The yearly immigration flow from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan will alter only marginally with the passing of the Bill and not necessarily in the short term in a downward direction. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook informed the House, as I believe he had earlier informed the Committee, that although previously the Labour Party was committed to immigration control he was suggesting some form of immigration decontrol with regard to East African Asians. That view would be greeted with great dismay. All my right hon. and hon. Friends who thought otherwise will be deceiving their constituents if they try to pass this measure off as one that will help to halt migration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan or avert the consequences of that migration. It will not. That is not its purpose, and in the short and medium term it will have no such effect.
If the basis upon which the Government ask for my support for the measure is that it was intended to reduce immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan, I would have to withhold that support. I would oppose the Bill as being inadequate and ineffectual on present trends. Such migration will continue at a rate of 30,000 to 40,000 a year or a further ½ million in the next 10 years, including the overstayers and the illegal immigrants of various descriptions.
The basis upon which the Bill is founded is none the less sound—that the citizens of the United Kingdom should have a citizenship of their own. Other countries define those who have the right to claim citizenship. So it should be with us. We are right to do it, albeit belatedly. Would that we had drafted even more tightly the right to belong. Would that we could treat everyone else as aliens, including those from the Republic of Eire and other EEC countries. Would that we had legislated against dual nationality as far as we were able to do. Notwithstanding these reservations, I shall support the Third Reading as a major step in the direction of restoring our national identity and independence.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: My only consolation for having to listen to the arrogance, bigotry and prejudice shown by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) is that after the next election I shall never have to listen to him again.
The Bill is a tripartite hotchpotch. I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said about the Government's aim. Where I disagree with him is that I think that the Government have missed it by a mile. It is a complicated Bill and difficult to understand, especially by those whom it most affects. The Government sought to change the complicated situation that has arisen since 1948, but they have succeeded in producing an even more complicated situation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) acquitted the Home Secretary of racism, and I think that the whole House will accept that. But, as my right hon. Friend said, the effect of the Bill will be to erect a barrier against the process of integration. I feel keenly about the Bill because I have

been engaged for a long time in trying to integrate ethnic minorities and build up a harmonious multi-racial community in the area I represent.
The riots in Brixton were nothing new to me. I remember Notting Hill in 1958. Over a period of years, by hard work day in and day out, an understanding has been reached among the ethnic minorities and there has been a working together in the community irrespective of race, colour and creed. The Bill is a barrier to the continuation of that process.
During 1958, 1959 and 1960, when most of the influx in my area was from the Caribbean, local newspapers contained advertisements "Room to let. No coloureds". That has not occurred during the past 10 years. If Mr. Speaker were in the Chair, he would recognise the same problem, because after mass unemployment 50 years ago in the Welsh valleys newspapers in my area contained advertisements "Room to let. No. Welsh". Prejudice of that kind has to be dealt with and defeated, and that has happened.
When the Bill becomes law, for the next two years I shall constantly have to try to build bridges because of the distress and fear it will cause. I accept, as the Minister of State said, that some of those fears are not justified and that the Bill is not quite as bad as many people think. But that is not important. What is important is whether people believe that it is bad.
The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said that the Bill made necessary a justification which did not exist before. By a coincidence, a parallel case of justification appears in this morning's Nursing Mirror editorial:
For petty inhumanity, the proposed regulations on health service charges to foreigners take some beating. Already hospitals have tightened up procedures, but in practice people with non-white skins are automatically suspect.
The Bill acts in precisely the same way in all areas where the new provisions apply. People with black skins will be suspect. They will have to provide maximum proof, and there is no right of appeal against decisions. I welcome and emphasise what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench. The Bill will be repealed by the next Labour Government. The tendency in Government is not to repeal but to try to reform the existing Act by taking out the worst parts and leaving the rest. With this Bill that would be inadequate so I welcome the firm commitment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook on behalf of a future Labour Government.
The only way in which the Bill can be dealt with by a future Labour Government is by complete repeal. Between now and then, a whole process of consultation with the people most worried and concerned needs to take place, so that by the time our Bill is put before the House it will have been thoroughly vetted and considered, so that the House can proceed on the basis of something that is fair and justified.
My fears are that we shall have to face so much red tape and problems in dealing with our constituents' queries that there will be a snarl-up, which will mean more public expenditute for more civil servants in the Minister of State's Department, more expenditure by my local authority in trying to sort out the problems and, if I may be strictly personal, much more time spent by me in trying to straighten out the problems with the Home Office.
Because of the cumbersome nature of the Bill, the way in which it has been drawn and the consequences which


it will have on my constituency, I shall not only vote solidly against its Third Reading but from now onwards I shall try to mitigate the worst effects on my constituents.

Mr. Whitney: I recognise that the concern of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) about the complication of the Bill is sincere and well-founded. Inevitably, it is a complicated measure. Any of us who laboured through the Committee would recognise that whatever approach is taken, the subject cannot but be complicated. I suggest to the hon. Member that his fears will prove ill-founded. I refer him to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who said that the vast majority of the blacks in this country would suffer no problems from the Bill and ought to be reassured by what it contained.
I join in the commendation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who has supported him so ably in grasping this long-standing nettle. All of us in the House know that that was needed. The hon. Member for York, for example, started to tackle it in his ministerial days in 1974. The result was that the Labour Party considered the problem, produced the Green Paper, and left it. The Government have moved on from the Green Paper. In many respects, the treatment of the problems has been more compassionate and understanding in dealing with, for example, dual nationality and the transmission through the female line. Those are all measures and moves that take cognisance of those problems.
We who live in Britain have the right to a citizenship. Virtually every country has one. We, for the historical reasons that are familiar to us, do not. The 1948 Act accreted the various changes of the curious concept of the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, so that by the time we reached 1980—indeed, long before that—that was a meaningless concept, and something else was needed.
Therefore, the fact that the Government have tackled the problem is something for which they should be greatly commended. After 150 hours we have produced by no means the perfect Bill. However, it brings a balance that deals with the conflicting claims that we all know so well. It achieves an answer that I believe is the best available in the circumstances.
My hon. and learned Friend and Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned the transmission of citizenship to children born overseas. I endorse their plea fo one more look at that question. We recognise that it is important for the interests of this country that British people working overseas must not be penalised for the general measures that we are obliged to take because of this country's problems with which the Bill seeks to deal.
The Bill must still go through the other place. I very much hope that we do not have a repeat of the problems that have arisen as it has gone through our own House. I refer to the deep anxiety that has been created among the immigrant communities by all sorts of people, most of whom ought to have known better. Some of them did it unwittingly, because they never read the Bill. Indeed, I doubt very much whether some Labour Members who have already spoken have read the Bill. In addition, many other men of good will—men of the cloth and

others—have neither read the Bill nor taken account of the changes that my right hon. Friend has introduced as the measure has proceeded through the House.
It is essential for the well-being of Britain as a society that this bubble of anxiety that has been built up should now be deflated. I very much hope that we shall hear no more references to pass laws, such as we heard from the leader of the Liberal Party.
I also hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will restrain his natural tendencies to excess. This is not an area in which we need bulls in china shops; it is an area in which there must be a sensitivity and understanding of the issues at stake.
When the Bill finally receives Royal Assent I hope that the Government will conduct a massive information and publicity campaign to counteract the grave damage to the immigrant communities that has already been done and to ensure that all of us clearly understand the sensible provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Nationality is a fundamental concept which ought to be decided on principle and not on expediency. The Bill. is shot through with expediency from start to finish, which springs from the artificial fears which the Conservative Party and others have attempted to create among the British people about the prospect of others immigrating to this country.
The worst feature of the Bill is the abandonment of the principle, which has applied for 700 years, that a child born in this country automatically becomes a British citizen. Under the new provisions, that is now not enough. A child will need to be born in this country of one parent who is either British or settled here. If it is subsequently decided, as it may be, that the parent is not legally settled in this country, the child can become stateless. Statelessness is a horrible condition in a world that is entirely dominated by nation States. In the past, statelessness has usually resulted from major catastrophes such as war, the redrawing of international boundaries, major revolutions and the break-up of States and empires.
Under the Bill, statelessness for such children could be brought about literally by accident. Let us consider the question of someone who has no doubt about his right to be settled in this country having a brush with the police. It could be because that person is literally run down in an accident, involved in a motor accident or reports a crime. It could be that during their inquiries the police will look into that person's background, decide that there is something wrong with his status as a settled person and report the fact to the Home Office. Some liverish Home Office official one morning—and, Lord knows, they are not noted for their liberality or humanity in such matters—will decide to press on with the case and announce that the parents of the child were not settled and, consequently, will make the child stateless.
If the parents are lucky and well advised, they will be able to challenge in the courts the reasonableness of the Home Office decision. Lawyers, at vast expense, will quibble about the niceties of the circumstances in which the parents settled. It is possible that, by a judgment of three to two, a court will decide that the parents were not properly settled here, and the child could he made stateless.
The Home Secretary should consider not just the effects on that family but what the effects will be in various ethnic minority groups if one or two similar cases occur. The willingness of many people in ethnic minorities to go to the police to seek their rights against other citizens is already limited. If that sort of case occurs, as it inevitably will, those communities will be even more reluctant to seek their rights against any form of authority and, in particular, to go to the police.
This squalid aspect of the Bill springs not from a principle but from the Government's concern that if they allowed that child to have British citizenship and then tried to throw out the unsettled or not properly settled parents they would be in breach of certain international rules and agreements. For that squalid and expedient reason, the Government are setting aside a 700-year-old principle that if one is born in Britain one is British. That is an admirable principle. I would have thought that it would seem admirable to the little Englanders and proto-Fascists on the Government Benches. They talk of British tradition and nineteenth century imperial tradition, but they have come a long way from that imperial tradition because at its worst it was dedicated to the concept of turning everyone in the world into British citizens and ruling them.
These squalid people have introduced this squalid law, which is demeaning to us all. It diminishes our reputation in the world and damages community relations in this country. I hope that the House will reject it. I am sure that it will not and that the geriatrics in the other House will not spring to the aid of the minority communities. The only time they set aside legislation from this place is when it has something to do with the rich and powerful whom they represent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like school transport?"'] I accept that. It is an inevitability. As in almost all examples, there is one saving grace in that the House of Lords did that. But I challenge the Home Secretary or any of his colleagues to think of any other occasion when the House of Lords has acted to interfere with legislation from this House to protect the poor and the worst-off in the community. I am sure that it will not do it, nor will the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Stanbrook: The intemperate attacks on the Bill by Opposition speakers, the charges of racialism and the sanctimonious humbug spoken by prominent people, including the leader of the Liberal Party, might make one despair for the future of democratic government in this country, for all those charges are unjustified, and the people concerned know it. I suppose that one has to excuse them to some extent because, being all decent and honourable men, they are simply playing the party game. They know in their hearts that the Bill is necessary, that its provisions are reasonable in the circumstances of the needs facing this country, and that the racialist charge is bogus.
It is sad that as the Bill has evolved the Opposition have become identified with the immigrants' lobby in their outright rejection of the Bill and in their efforts to amend its detailed provisions in Committee. That sort of position is bad for British politics and bad for this country. Not once have the Opposition even appeared to look beyond

the interests of the immigrant community when considering the Bill; not once have they looked at the interests of the country as a whole.
It might help if more Opposition Members lived in their own constituencies and shared the legitimate personal fears and anxieties of the majority of their constituents on immigration issues. It is the good fortune of some Opposition Members to represent areas known as deprived areas. One Labour Member—unfortunately, he is not here—said that he was proud to represent a constituency in which one-third of the people were coloured immigrants. Has he consulted, and does he feel that he represents, the other two-thirds? Those people should be considered just as much as the immigrants. As a result of that identification with the minority, Opposition Members have left the views and interests of the majority to be expressed by others whose opinions they do not themselves share.
The cause of democracy suffers when political issues are identified with personalities. That is just as true of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the causes that he legitimately expounds as it is of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his courageous willingness to expound the views that he holds on this subject.
On the issues dealt with by the Bill we are in the grip of forces which, because of the large influx of immigrants into Britain, we now seem unable to control. Racial violence is occurring with increasing frequency. The British people are sick at heart about it all. We badly need honest and forthright politicians to express their feelings without fear of being condemned on moral grounds. It is, therefore, deplorable that Church leaders should have condemned the Bill as being racially discriminatory. Any nationality law that is based upon place of birth or descent from one's parents is bound to favour those who are born or who are the children of those born in the country concerned. That is just as true of Nigeria and its nationality law as of America and its nationality law, or of the nationality laws of the countries from which our immigrants come. The Bill is no more racialist than any other nationality law in the world; indeed, it is a good deal less so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) reminds me.
Most people in Britain happen to be white-skinned. Most of those who would like to become British citizens happen to be black-skinned.
Those Church leaders who condemn the Bill bear a great share of the responsibility for the misunderstanding and the racial friction that derives from it. Marchers, protesters and even rioters think themselves covered by the moral sanction of Church leaders. The Bishop of Truro is the chairman of the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility. He is soon to become the Bishop of London. He described the Bill as being manifestly discriminatory between racial groups. That is quite untrue. When taken to task for this expression by some of my hon. Friends and me, he accepted that this was not the intention of the Bill but the impression given by it. It was the image of the Bill. If that is so, people like the Bishop of Truro, who should know better and do know better, bear a great responsibility for the impression and image given of the Bill. Misdescriptions of this kind are excusable in politicians who are playing party games. In a bishop, they are inexcusable.

Mr. Budgen: When bishops behave as politicians, they behave as badly as politicians.

Mr. Stanbrook: I suppose that may be so.
It is true that the Bill has its imperfections. One is so important that I should like to mention it again. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about those people who are to become Britons by descent. A group of them who now have the right to pass on their nationality to their children will lose that right on the passage of the Bill. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has yet taken the point or recognised the injustice which will be done to a number of British people around the world who, for generations, have enjoyed this right.
I hope that a remedy will be introduced in another place. I have had the honour of presenting three petitions to the House on behalf of British communities abroad making this point. I was present when a petition signed by over 1,000 Britons born in Western Europe was presented to the Prime Minister two weeks ago, making the same point.
It was stated, I think by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in opening the debate, that it was no part of the Bill's purpose to diminish the status of those persons affected by it. The status of the class of person to whom I have referred is affected by the Bill, to his prejudice. I hope that the Government will find a wording that avoids creating an injustice to these people. This is an imperfection in an otherwise necessary Bill. I welcome the Bill. I believe that it deserves the support of the whole House.

Mr. R. McTaggart: I recognise that this is probably one of the more controversial pieces of legislation that this Parliament will see. Certainly, this Government lack nothing in controversy.
Although I am at a disadvantage, in that I did not serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill and am therefore not as conversant with its intricacies as those who did, I recognise that the Bill's most distressing and worrying clauses are retained, not the least of which is that concerning newborn children, in that for centuries every child born in the United Kingdom was automatically a British citizen. That has been the case for over 700 years, and although many features of the present Act are undesirable and complicated, this provision has worked well and is simple, and anyone can understand it.
Opposition Members have consistently said that a new Act was necessary and would be welcomed. We all know that the present Act is outdated. It is 33 years old, and much has happened in this country and the world in that time. Many former colonies have gained their independence, and rightly so.
It has also been said that any new Act should be an improvement on the present legislation. It should be simpler to understand than what we have now. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but the United Kingdom is not exactly brimming over with eggheads who are experts on the present nationality legislation. The opposite is true of this Bill. It is actually more complicated than the present legislation.
I believe that any new Act should contain legislation that is an extension of people's rights, in order to make the insecure among us feel more secure and to ensure that people feel more a part of our society, and on firmer

ground. We should be at one, instead of for ever fighting among ourselves, as seems to happen now, with the advent of certain racist groups in this country. Again, the Bill does not do that. The reverse is true, in that certain rights that people now have are withdrawn from them.
The Bill destroys the simplicity of children born in this country being British citizens. In its place, it introduces an immensely complicated rule. As far as I am aware, no evidence has been advanced by the Government to show that the present rule has created great problems. I believe, far from what the Government said on Second Reading in January, that the Bill is not just about nationality; it is about controlling the number, not only of immigrants but of coloured immigrants, in particular, coming into this country.
Another fact that exposes the Government's hypocrisy is that the United Kingdom is a party to the United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness. Yet here we have Government proposals whereby, for the first time in our history, some children born here will be stateless. What about the tragedies that that will cause?
What about children who become entitled to register when they reach the age of 10? Surely, it is obvious that problems will arise when these children have to establish that they are British citizens. What will their nationality be up to the age of 10? Will they be entitled to the same benefits as every other child? What happens if a child's parents are divorced in the interim period? What evidence is required to establish the child's citizenship? How do confused parents find out the nationality of their child? I have read the Committee proceedings in that respect, but the matter is ambiguous. I certainly find it hard to understand, and I can readily imagine the confusion and resentment that will be caused throughout the country if this becomes law.
Young individuals, who may well be the cream of our society, who have lived and learnt throughout their lives in the only country that they have ever known, training to be responsible adults, may find, to their utter astonishment, that they cannot present sufficient evidence to the authorities to prove their citizenship. They may find, to their dismay, that they are not British citizens. I can imagine the traumatic feelings of both parents and children in that situation.
Any hon. Member who has immigrant families in his constituency knows only too well how difficult it is at present for those families to obtain advice with their present problems. I can imagine that those problems will increase as more and more confused families seek help from the overworked and under-resourced advisory services in this country.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, it is worth mentioning the steadfast and concerned attitude of sources such as the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the Church of England, the Scottish Churches Council and various community race relations groups. All those organisations are prepared to stand up for the rights of immigrants because they know the difficulties that they face at this time.
One can only reasonably conclude that the Bill is a bad Bill. It attacks sections of our community, it is divisive, and it should be defeated. Even at this stage, something can be salvaged from it. I believe that it is incumbent upon those Conservative Back Benchers who have at times


opposed certain parts of the Bill, if they are to retain any kind of credibility, to come into the Lobby with us tonight to defeat the Government's proposals.

Mr. Michael Mates: Quite the most remarkable speech of the evening has come from the lips of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). He stood up honestly and said that black people who are legally settled in this country have nothing to fear from the Bill and that it will not discriminate against them in any way. What a marvellous thing that is to have heard from him at last, and what a tragedy it is that he could not bring himself to say that on Second Reading, when he knew those facts just as well. What a tragedy it is, too, that in all the appearances on television and in the media that he has made as an expert on this subject he has not trumpeted that out loud and clear all along. If he had done so, he would have done a far greater service to all those people whom he alleges that he supports.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the hon. Gentleman reads my Second Reading speech, he will see that it is there.

Mr. Mates: I have the Second Reading speech, and it is the contrast that has made me refer to it. The hon. Gentleman said:
the practical effect will be racialist, in that it will fall hardest upon black people, rather than on white people".—[Official Report, 28 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 974.]
Now he says that black people legally settled here have nothing to fear from the Bill. That is a totally different tone. This time at least, he has been honest. It is a pity that he was not honest before.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Bill that we have now is a very different Bill from the Bill that we had in Committee. The Government made two major concessions which took out the racialist element.

Mr. Mates: Nothing that has happened since the Second Reading of the Bill has made any difference to the people legally settled here and their status being unchanged. That is a fact. I shall not proceed with this argument, because we are very close to winding-up time.
As we reach the end of these very long proceedings, I should like to reinforce the Home Secretary's words about my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I think that I speak for all of us who sat through those long hours in praising his unending patience, his amazing knowledge of the detail and, most of all, his acceptance of reasoned argument, which has been a model for us all.
Having given my hon. Friend that unstinting congratulation, may I ask him to take all those qualities just one short stage further? I made a speech yesterday and, because I did not get the response that I hoped to get, I added to it. I shall not repeat it tonight, unlike most Opposition Members who have repeated all their speeches ad nauseam. The fact is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said, reinforced by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and the motion which went on the Order Paper last night, which was signed by all the officers of the Conservative home affairs committee and has been reinforced by 54 Members

of this party across the whole spectrum, that something is wrong. It is simply the attitude of retrospectively taking away rights.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State knows the point that I am trying to make. I ask him, first, to acknowledge that this is a restrospective taking away of rights and, secondly, to say that he will do something about it, because it would be totally in character for him to have listened patiently to a lot of reasoned argument and then to take it away and come up with a thoroughly sensible amendment which the other place can consider and which we can then deal with when the Bill comes back from the other place.
With that parting remark, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Government on the way in which the whole Bill has gone through. It is vitally necessary. It is non-discriminatory. Black people and all coloured people settled legally in this country have nothing to fear from the Bill. Those are not my words but the words of the hon. Member for York, and they should ring out loud and clear, as long as they do not do him too much harm.

Mr. Dubs: Earlier this evening the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) made certain accusations against the majority of Labour Members. He suggested that we were representing only the immigrant lobby. If we have constituents who feel threatened and who are made to believe that they are insecure by legislation of the sort that is now before us, it is surely in the interests of all those living in our constituencies that we should speak up to oppose legislation that causes those feelings and beliefs. Surely, even the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not a desirable piece of legislation that causes individuals to feel threatened and to believe that they are unwelcome in our society. That is one of the main reasons why we have been critical of certain parts of the Bill throughout its passage.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) made a speech about which I do not wish to comment, save that he posed the question whether the people who have come to Britain from overseas—people who are black—would fight for this country.

Mr. Stokes: I said "with dual nationality".

Mr. Dubs: It may be that the hon. Gentleman added those words. That addition does not alter the point that I am about to make. Many black people came to Britan between 1939 and 1945 to fight for it. We should recognise that. We should recognise also that many black people are serving in the British Army in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. It is not right for Conservative Members to cast such aspersions on those who are living in this country and playing their full part as British citizens. We want people who have come to this country, or who in many instances were born here, to feel that they belong here fully. It is suggestions to the contrary that come from Conservative Members that are undesirable and add to the feelings on the part of minority ethnic groups that they are not wanted. That is something that we wish to reject.
This is an unhappy occasion. That is because the Government do not yet understand that many members of ethnic minority groups feel threatened by the Bill. It is seen as part and parcel of a series of measures and speeches


which threaten black people in Britain. The immigration rule changes that we debated last Session are the most obvious example. Many speeches have been made in which it has been argued that we must reduce the number of people entering Britain. As a result, black people feel threatened by the Government's actions. That is why they are apprehensive about the Bill.
There is not time to go through the various aspects of the Bill, but I shall give one or two examples. There is the provision which means that people born in Britain will not have the right automatically of British citizenship. That is the most reprehensible feature of the Bill. It means that no longer can any child born here have the automatic right of British citizenship. In future, children and their parents will have to prove whether they have the right to British citizenship. That will cause misunderstanding and will appear to be discriminatory.
I turn to the East African Asians. Under the Bill, they will become British overseas citizens. If the Government wish to do one thing to improve matters, they should state that they will immediately increase the quota, which is believed to amount to only 500 per annum. Year after year, people queue up to get special vouchers. The Opposition wish to give them British citizenship and the automatic right of entry. We should like to get rid of the queue. We say that and believe it. The next Labour Government will do it. At the very least, the Government could prevent the intolerably long years of waiting which they impose on those who have the right to come here. The Government admit that. If they took that measure of good will, they would do much to undo the harm that the Bill will do to race relations in Britain.

Mr. Tilley: I should like to pick up the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) regarding the comments of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). A constituency point is involved in the sense that many men and women in my constituency are dual nationals. Many are Jamaicans and registered citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Many have fought for this country and are now serving in the British Forces. Indeed, some have died in Northern Ireland.
If the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge embodies the priniciples of decency that he talks about so much, he will withdraw the slur against the reputation of those who are serving and who have served in the British Forces and against the memory of those who have died for our freedom and his. I am sorry that he does not appear to wish to take that opportunity. His silence speaks volumes.

Mr. Stokes: I am a great admirer of the British Forces and of all the races that take part in them. Neither the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) nor the hon. Gentleman answered the question that if someone has an allegiance to two countries, to whom does he ultimately owe allegiance? In the end, there is bound to be doubt. That is so obvious that I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman cannot understand it.

Mr. Pavitt: Ask the Gurkhas.

Mr. Tilley: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge has shown how skin deep his attachment to decency and honesty is. I gave a specific case. We are

talking about dual nationals who are serving in, and in some cases dying for, the British Forces. If the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw that slur, the House will deeply regret it.
We have come to the end of about 170 hours of debate on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. If there were any prizes for the hon. Member who had spoken most, I should be fairly confident of sauntering casually over the finishing line, because I believe that I am well ahead. Therefore, I shall not detain the House for longer than is necessary. In the penultimate speech of this long process, I should underline the fact that the process has been valuable, not only because hon. Members have been able to discuss the Bill's full implications but because it has enabled the public to realise the full implications and horrors of the proposals contained in it. I pay tribute to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who did not serve on the Committee but who have shown by their speeches in the last three days that they understand the details and implications of the Bill.
As a result of the education of public opinion, the Government have ranged against them all the Churches, all the ethnic minority groups and all the individuals and groups that are genuinely concerned about achieving racial harmony. All those people and groups know that the Bill is racially discriminatory in two major ways.
First, it is based on our racially discriminatory immigration laws and the immigration rules as tightened by the Government.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Has the hon. Gentleman not yet realised, after 170 hours of debate, that the Bill provides what the Green Paper suggested was vital—namely, a proper foundation for immigration laws? It has nothing to do with immigration itself.

Mr. Tilley: I have to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the present Home Secretary said in Leicester before the election that there would be a Nationality Bill he stated that its purpose would be to reduce future sources of immigration. During our 170 hours of consideration, it has been rammed down our throats that the Government would not countenance any changes to the Bill that interfered with the aims and objectives of the immigration rules. There is no doubt that it is based on our immigration laws.
The second reason why we believe that the Government are guilty of racial discrimination in the Bill is that the vast majority of those who will lose rights and opportunities are black.
As my hon. Friends have said, perhaps the most important consequence of the Bill is that for the first time in British history children will be born stateless in Britain. That has got home to the public, and they find it very objectionable. As more people come to realise it, they will understand that it involves a fundamental attack on the civil liberties of everyone in this country.

Mr. Marlow: Will you repeal it?

Mr. Tilley: I wish that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would not give me the sort of wonderful feed lines from a sedentary position that he was kind enough to give me on Second Reading. I wish to speak briefly, in order to give the Minister a chance to reply to the debate. The Government should be ashamed of the Bill, if only because it creates statelessness in this country for the first time.
The public are also aware that the Government are determined to keep their arbitrary powers in this area, to exercise them in secret and to refuse to have decisions tested in the courts. Ministers have tried to shrug off our accusations. They appear languid and bored by the accusations. We are not impressed, and the country is not impressed, by their impersonation of the old "Comic Cuts" team of Weary Willie and Tired Tim. The facts speak for themselves, and the public know the truth.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House reasonably make a special effort to find favour with, and to help, the ethnic minority groups in their constituencies. I hope that when those black and brown citizens come to assess the commitment of their Member of Parliament to racial harmony they will not just listen to the honeyed words that come at election time but will pay more attention to the Division Lists of the vote we are about to take. They will then see who voted for and who voted against this racially discriminatory Bill after its harmful effect had been made clear, having been exposed in the course of a long Committee stage and a long Report stage.
I therefore call on all hon. Members to vote against the Bill. I end with a pledge on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that if it becomes law the next Labour Government will make its repeal a very high priority. We will repeal it and replace it with a nationality law that is not discriminatory.

Mr. Budgen: It will be like our reform of the rating system.

Mr. Tilley: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has somewhat undermined his own side. I hope that in both cases the Government concerned will be judged not by their words but by their deeds and by the legislation they produce in the House.

Mr. Raison: The time is fast approaching when we shall, by a convincing majority, send this Bill forward to another place. It is a long overdue piece of legislation. It replaces a nationality law that fails to provide a specifically British citizenship. It provides just such a citizenship at long last, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), in a notable and honest speech, confirmed to the House.
Despite the determined campaign waged in some quarters against the Bill, I am sure that increasingly with time the great majority of citizens, including the ethnic minority communities, will welcome the national approach to citizenship that the Bill makes. At last people will know where they stand. If they are British citizens they will have the right of abode here and will know that they are not subject to our immigration laws. If they are citizens of the British dependent territories it will be clear that their connections lie with those territories. They will still be British, but they will no longer hold a citizenship that implies, quite misleadingly, that they have the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Of course, it is true that the Bill also provides for other citizenships or statuses. And these do not imply the right to enter and settle in either the United Kingdom or a dependency. These transitional categories will in time die

out. Until they do, it is necessary to make suitable provision for them. We cannot simply ignore the claims of the past.
What the Bill has done is to put an end to the subterfuge whereby we describe people as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies while not permitting them to enter freely either the United Kingdom or the colonies. Some will say that we ought to have put an end to that subterfuge in a different way, namely, by admitting all those concerned to full British citizenship. That is a point of view, and the arguments have been gone into very thoroughly during the passage of the Bill through the House. The view has prevailed, rightly, I believe, that we cannot now put the clock back and open our doors in this way. It would be disastrous for race relations to try to do so.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to the scheme of citizenship for British dependent territories. I appreciate the feeling on the part of some hon. Members that it would have been better for at least some dependent territories to have their own separate citizenships. I continue to believe, however, that this would have caused more problems than it would have solved. It is clear that separate citizenships are not widely desired in the dependencies. What those who feel strongly on the issue want is British citizenship.
Some hon. Members would be ready to meet the desire for British citizenship in some cases. I must, however, emphasise yet again the resentment that this would cause in territories whose inhabitants were not selected for conferment of British citizenship. A composite British citizenship of the dependent territories proposed in the Bill therefore remains the best solution for the dependent territories.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook complained about the status of the citizens of the British dependent territories. In our discussions on part II of the Bill we have often had occasion to refer to the rights of entry and residence of citizens of the British dependent territories. Constitutionally, these matters would be governed, as they are at present, by immigration ordinances made by the dependent territories themselves. Not surprisingly, those ordinances do not allow for the unrestricted entry of anybody who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It would be ludicrous to expect a relatively small colony to open its doors to everyone from the United Kingdom and other dependencies; and the individual ordinances show some variations in the extent to which they allow residence rights even to people who might claim a connection with the territory concerned.
The Government do not feel that the existing constitutional position, whereby the dependencies have control over immigration matters, should be altered. We do not believe that that would be either justified or necessary. We believe, however, that it is important that future citizens of the British dependent territories should have somewhere to go. We welcome, therefore, the indications that we have received from these dependent territories that they are prepared to review their ordinances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) sought assurances about Hong Kong. It is the fact that nothing in the Bill changes the relationship and commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the people of Hong Kong. I gladly give that assurance.
Next, I confirm that citizens of the British dependent territories will remain United Kingdom nationals in the sense that the United Kingdom can afford consular protection and represent their interests internationally—both of which, of course, we intend to continue to do.
Finally, on the question of what those citizens tell immigration authorities in third countries, the position is as follows. They will bear a passport that will on the cover have the words "British Passport" and the name "Hong Kong". Inside, the citizenship description will probably be "citizen of the British Dependent Territories—Hong Kong". We shall of course tell other countries of our new citizenship titles, and these descriptions should cause no doubt or difficulty to immigration officers in third countries. I should make the point that my answers to my hon. Friend, which I hope he will find reassuring, will apply with equal force to our other dependent territories, and that must be emphasised.
There have been references in this debate to the provision in part III of the Bill for British overseas citizens. It has been suggested that they should instead become British citizens, or that those in Africa or India should become British citizens, or that those left over after a Commonwealth conference should become British citizens. All these ideas are, we believe, quite unrealistic. They would almost certainly lead to a large increase in the numbers who would wish to come here from overseas. In our present circumstances such a course would be only too likely to damage race relations, and so, too, would the argument that we should allow all voucher holders to come into this country at one time.
I do not mind admitting that one of the trickiest areas in tackling our scheme of citizenship has been citizenship by descent. Tackling its complexities in Committee was occasionally a nightmarish operation. I believe that we have broadly succeeded in the task.
Starting from the basis that citizenship by descent must be limited, as a universal right to one generation of descent, we have nevertheless provided something further for those with a real case. We have dealt, I believe effectively, with the problem of British business men overseas who maintain British connections. We have extended the opportunity of consular registration for a transitional period, and we have at last put our Service men and other Crown servants on a fair basis. Again, of course, descent will now go through the female line.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and my hon. Friends the Members for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), Uxbridge (Mr.Shersby) and Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) referred to an early-day motion about transmission to those abroad, and their feeling that we had not quite got things right. They asked if we could help to tackle that problem further when the Bill went to the other place. I can make no firm commitment as to the outcome, but I undertake that we shall further consider that point carefully between now and when the Bill goes to the other place.
I shall turn to some of the criticisms made by Opposition Members. There were accusations of racialism. We have had the usual accusations that the Bill is racialist—or, perhaps more often, that it seems to be racialist. That is, of course, false. Members of the ethnic minority populations lawfully settled here will find their position unaffected by the Bill. Those who have been naturalised or registered since settling here will become

British citizens. Their children will become British citizens if one of their parents is a British citizen, or is settled. The addition to clause 41 that the Government made in Committee makes it quite plain that applications for citizenship are to be considered without regard to an applicant's race, colour or creed. Those who are seeking citizenship under the present system will still be able to do so. All those are facts.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and others attacked our departure from jus soli—the principle that everyone born here should automatically receive citizenship. What is the principle that says that someone, neither of whose parents belong here, either as citizens or settled persons, should have an automatic claim to our citizenship? Why should the child of the student or the short-term worker here take back to his parents' country when he returns an entitlement to be seen as a British citizen. Why should the child of someone who is not lawfully here have an entitlement to our citizenship, unless he has been here so long that his roots are truly embedded here? That is the point of principle. We are looking for real connection and real commitment.
What about the practicalities of the matter? Of course there are points that must be carefully considered. We have considered them at great length during our proceedings. However, I remain unconvinced that they tip the balance against our proposals. Those who oppose us appear to believe that it would be our aim to place every possible obstacle in the way of those who seek to prove that they are citizens, at least if they are black. That is grotesque. In these matters we are concerned about fairness and truth.
The business of establishing citizenship for the purpose of securing, for example, a passport will not entail a witch hunt. I stress again that in no conceivable sense does the Bill move us towards a society in which people have to walk around bearing a passport or a pass.
Another matter for debate has been dual nationality. We are keeping dual nationality, not primarily as a matter of universal principle but because it suits the particular circumstances of our history and population. Because, above all, in the Empire and Commonwealth dual loyalties are possible. One can have feelings of loyalty to both Britain and, for example, Zambia or New Zealand. For those who are making their lives here, the transition from one culture to another has been eased by a gradual development of new loyalties rather than by an abrupt insistence on a break with the old countries. Allegiance is as much a matter of the heart as of formal loyalty. I do not play down the matter, expressed as it is by the oath that the Bill still retains.
The easing of the transition that is allowed by dual nationality and that we have seen with many other migrants in the past is, in our view, a way to avert the conflicts so direly predicted by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Let me say once more to him that our Bill, including the retention of dual nationality, will serve to bind together the nation and not to tear it apart.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promised on Second Reading that the Government would approach the Bill's passage through the House constructively. He said that we would consider the case for amendments and if necessary make them. No one can seriously deny that we have kept that promise. The result is an improved measure, and one that can only be good for race relations.
The Bill is not just about a section of the community; it is about all our people. For us, for the first time, it creates a British citizenship—something to tie us together and give a focus for our pride and loyalties. That is no small prize, and I urge the House to bring it about by giving the Bill a Third Reading tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 234.

Division No. 205]
[12 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Elliott, Sir William


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Emery, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Eyre, Reginald


Banks, Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bendall, Vivian
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Farr, John


Best, Keith
Fell, Anthony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Blackburn, John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Body, Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fry, Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brittan, Leon
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brotherton, Michael
Good hew, Victor


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorst, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gray, Hamish


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Buck, Antony
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian


Burden, Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Butler, Hon Adam
Hamilton, Hon A.


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hastings, Stephen


Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heddle, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Henderson, Barry


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cope, John
Hill, James


Corrie, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Costain, Sir Albert
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hooson, Tom


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Peter


Crouch, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Dover, Denshore
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick





Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Porter, Barry


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kershaw, Anthony
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James


King, Rt Hon Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Latham, Michael
Renton, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lee, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rossi, Hugh


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Rost, Peter


Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Richard


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Silvester, Fred


Major, John
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Speed, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Speller, Tony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Mather, Carol
Squire, Robin


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stainton, Keith


Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Patrick
Stevens, Martin


Mellor, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stokes, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Tapsell, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Molyneaux, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Hector
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Donald


Moore, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Morgan, Geraint
Thornton, Malcolm


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trippier, David


Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Murphy, Christopher
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Myles, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waddington, David


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, John


Neubert, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Newton, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Normanton, Tom
Walker, B. (Perth)


Nott, Rt Hon John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Onslow, Cranley
Wall, Patrick


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Waller, Gary


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Ward, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Parkinson, Cecil
Wells, Bowen


Parris, Matthew
Wheeler, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Patten, John (Oxford)
Whitney, Raymond


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wickenden, Keith


Pawsey, James
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Percival, Sir Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Pink, R. Bonner
Wolfson, Mark


Pollock, Alexander
Young, Sir George (Acton)






Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Adams, Allen
Dunn, James A.


Allaun, Frank
Dunnett, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alex


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Bagier, Gordon AT.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Beith, A. J.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bldwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Faulds, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Field, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ford, Ben


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foster, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell, Ian
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carmichael, Nell
Ginsburg, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Golding, John


Cartwright, John
Graham, Ted


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cook, Robin F.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cowans, Harry
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Craigen, J. M.
Haynes, Frank


Crawshaw, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Crowther, J. S.
Heffer, Eric S.


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Homewood, William


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Horam, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howells, Geralnt


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Huckfield, Les


Deakins, Eric
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dixon, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville


Dobson, Frank
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dormand, Jack
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Douglas, Dick
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)





Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kinnock, Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Lambie, David
Roper, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Ryman, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sandelson, Neville


Litherland, Robert
Sever, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Short, Mrs Renée


McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McNally, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie


McNamara, Kevin
Stallard, A. W.


McTaggart, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Stott, Roger


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Meacher, Michael
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tilley, John


Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watkins, David


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael


Morton, George
White, Frank R.


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Newens, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Whitlock, William


O'Halloran, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Parker, John
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Race, Reg



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Noes:


Richardson, Jo
Mr. James Tinn and Mr. James Hamilton


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Unemployment (Leigh)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I should like to record my appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Speaker for graciously according me this Adjournment debate on a very important, significant and, as will be seen in the future, historical subject.
My purpose is to dot the i's and cross the t's in regard to the very serious unemployment problems in my constituency. The area also embraces a section of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). It will be a great privilege to hear him speak for a few minutes in the debate this evening about the problems that affect us and about the day-to-day issues with which we are dealing consistently as a result of the abysmal failure of the Government to follow any sensible form of industrial strategy.
I well remember attending a meeting of the North-West group of Members of Parliament at which the Secretary of State for Industry—now known only as the Secretary of State for Industrial Sterility—told us openly that the degrading of our area from intermediate area status as from 1 August 1982 was a sign of hope. Because of the number of industrial closures that have taken place within the Leigh travel-to-work area, however, that hope has been turned into hopelessness.
I should like to give three classic examples of very go-ahead industrial units which have shown the sort of enterprise of which the Secretary of State for Industry spoke. He referred to the extrapreneurial spirit that was imperative if we were to hold our own with our international competitors and to retain within world markets our commercial standing and our ability to win orders.
I wish to relate to the Minister examples of what has happened in the travel-to-work area. The Government's silly and suicidal economic policies have had an adverse effect on the welfare and the standard of living of the people represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton and me. Three closure announcements have been made within the last two or three weeks involving practically 1,000 workers. This means that by the end of June unemployment will have trebled in two years.
A classic example is textiles. Thirteen mills were operating within the Leigh constituency when I arrived at Westminster. Five have since closed and three are operating short-time working. Without the short-time working compensation scheme, many more jobs would have disappeared. That is probably the only point that I concede to the Government. Unit One of Carrington Viyella, the most up-to-date textile mill in Western Europe, is on short-time working. It has impeccable industrial relations. It has multi-shift working. Its unit production costs compare with those anywhere in Great Britain and Western Europe. It has, however, encountered unfair foreign competition, principally from the United States, where energy subsidies enable industrialists to charge competitve prices, in contrast to the "Queensberry Rules" that operate in this country.
The closure, recently announced, of the Sir John Holden mill with 230 employees and the situation at Unit One mean that they are the victims of unscrupulous tactics

used by our competitive adversaries overseas. Another shock announcement is that BICC, whose chairman is Sir Raymond Pennock, president of the CBI, is to make 350 employees redundant within the statutory limit for notice of job cessation to be given to employees.
When great multinational companies with an international reputation for producing goods of the right quality at the right price cannot achieve the unit costs of foreign companies it is a terrible indictment of the Government's inability to provide some form of protection against unfair competition.
Only recently the BICC circular, "Focus on Leigh", said that teamwork is the keyword for 1981. It says:
Despite many difficulties 1980 turned out to be a very successful year and credit for this must be given in no small part to Leigh employees at all levels for the high degree of cooperation and flexibility they provided over the year".
It goes on to say that they will accept the challenge in 1981 of international competition. The paragraph known as the confidence paragraph says:
Leigh's efforts have by no means gone unnoticed and as a result of our recent performance the Board has agreed to allow us to invest about three times as much on plant improvement and new material compared with 1980. This is a measure of the confidence which the company has in the Leigh Management and workforce".
That was just two months ago. Now, we have the shock announcement that the company finds that the industrial recession is biting so deeply that orders have been reduced by 38 per cent. and that it must therefore take measures to reduce the labour force.
In 1980, the reasons given for a gloomy picture by management were as follows: the commercial manager—recession; the accountant—the strength of the pound; the works services manager—the energy cost gap; and the Vic Warr works manager—inflation. So there may be a combination of factors that derive directly from the Government's economic policy. This crazy policy of pursuing monetarist theories has now proved that when firms honestly try to compete they find it impossible to do so with the restraints and inhibitions imposed on them by the Government.
I take another firm, renowned in the automobile industry, which produces electrical harnesses—Ward and Goldstone. It makes electrical harnesses for Ford Cortinas, Fiestas, the Princess and others. I shall quote from a message sent on 12 February to all its members,
employees and staff:
Good news at Ward &amp; Goldstone, Butts Mill—The company is pleased to announce that due to the sales success of British Leyland work they are able to reinstate the guaranteed working week for all its transport and general workers' employees
—250 employees—
effectively meaning an end to short time working. The statement has reminded the workforce that the efforts in both labour and management, over the past year, is only the starting point for the year to come.
Yet the firm has announced only within the past 48 hours that the jobs of 300 employees are threatened because it is facing unfair competition, in the main, from Spain, Taiwan and the cheap labour markets. The firm's assessment is that on the year's turnover there will probably be a loss of about £700,000,
and this loss would be returned every year thereafter. Obviously, the company could not allow this",
and it would have to consider reducing its labour force by about 300 employees.
I am glad to say that, as a result of an agreement between the unions and employers, as temporary relief to


parry immediate redundancies, short-time working compensation agreements will be applied to the firm. I hope that the Minister will be receptive to this. It is a classic case of a company which has endeavoured to meet the challenge of foreign competition on a fair basis and has been unable to meet that demand simply because the dice are loaded against it.
There is also the scandalous problem of youth unemployment within the Leigh travel-to-work area. Again, it is an indictment of the Government that youth unemployment in the area is running at between 15 and 20 per cent. and will certainly be 20 per cent. by the end of this month.
I therefore appeal to the Minister to ask his immediate boss to consider, because of the dire circumstances in which the area finds itself, giving full development area status to the part of the world represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton and myself. Having read out to the Minister the dictionary of disaster that has overcome the industrial work force in our area, I am convinced that no Government since the war have done so much to damage British industry in so short a space of time as the present Conservative Government.
Having said that, I appeal to the Minister seriously to consider the position that I and my hon. Friend put to him and our appeal for intervention and help to be given to our area.

Mr. John Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for allowing me to participate in this short debate. I congratulate him on promoting the debate on the vitally important subject of the serious and mounting unemployment problems deliberately created by the Tory Government for the people of his constituency and mine and, indeed, of every other parliamentary constituency in the North-West region. I also pay tribute to the splendid work that my hon. Friend does for his constituents in constantly seeking to protect them from the outrageous depredations of the Government.
Golborne and Lowton, in my constituency, are part of the Leigh travel-to-work area and, of course, many of my constituents work in Leigh. I should say that they used to work there, as many of them are now in the dole queue. The economic health of Leigh is therefore of vital importance to my constituents in that whenever closures or redundancies take place there some of my constituents lose their jobs.
There is not a great deal of employment in Golborne and Lowton, which tends to be a dormitory area for people working in surrounding towns, but the industry that we had has been crucified at the hands of the Secretary of State for Industry. Two major blows have been struck since this awful Government were elected.
First, there was the closure of Intex Yarns in two phases, with the loss of some 800 jobs. The closure of that plant signalled the virtual ending of my constituency's links with the textile industry.
The second major blow was the closure of Lowton Construction Limited, a stricken victim of high interest charges and the Government's ruthless decimation of the building and construction industry. More than 600 jobs disappeared with that closure.
Delecta Foods and Goodenough Pumps, excellent small firms, closed with the loss of more than 100 jobs.

Redundancies at other firms, such as Rexpack and Unit Pallets, have all added to the mounting toll of unemployment deliberately created by the Government.
Unemployment was less than 6 per cent. when the Labour Government left office. It has now risen to 13·3 per cent. in the Leight travel-to-work area. Those grim figures mask the fact that male unemployment is even higher. Even worse, they mask the horrifying and, to my mind, frightening figures for youth unemployment, particularly among school leavers. I warn the House that unless the Government take action to get our young people into full-time, worthwhile employment in the immediate future the consequences will be disastrous for the future of our country.
I endorse my hon. Friend's plea to the Minister to use his good offices with the respective Secretaries of State to upgrade Leigh to the development area status that Wigan enjoys, reminding the Minister that Leigh is part of the Wigan metropolitan county district. I hope that the Minister will be able to be helpful to us tonight. We need all the help that we can get within the Leigh travel-to-work area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): As the hon. Member for Leigh (M r. Cunliffe) knows, I, too, have a constituency in the North-West. Like the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), I am well aware of the problems that unemployment has created in the North-West. I know them personally. My constituency may have a marginally lower unemployment rate than the constituencies of the hon. Members for Leigh and Newton, but I am aware of the difficulties that people are suffering as a result of unemployment. I am aware of the problems that are being suffered by their families and their children. The hon. Member for Leigh articulated extremely well the problems and the personal difficulties.
Unemployment in the Leigh travel-to-work area is running at a higher level than generally in the North-West. However, the current recession is the deepest since the 1930s. The hon. Member for Leigh will appreciate that the North-West has suffered more than any other area. Textiles in the North-West are experiencing special difficulties. I could give an analysis of the problems—perhaps not as well as the hon. Gentleman—and we could contiue discussing and debating them for a long time. It is easy to present an analysis of the problems, but it is more difficult to explain exactly how one will solve them.
The hon. Member for Newton, who is an eminent Member of this place, is the parliamentary private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Frank R. White: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman sought to put the problem as well. I understand that he is in a difficult position. He is the PPS to the Leader of the Opposition and in the situation that exists in the Labour Party it must be difficult for him to know which way to turn. Is he to support the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), as he indicated by his speech? Is he to argue for mammoth intervention, as I understood him to advocate, or is he to argue in favour of the person to whom he is the PPS—the Leader of the Opposition?
The hon. Gentleman must be in an extremely difficult position. I understand why he has to intervene in a debate such as this. I understand the difficulties that exist in the Labour Party.

Mr. John Evans: The relationship that I have with the Leader of the Opposition has little to do with the problems of the Leigh travel-to-work area. There is no question about where my support and loyalty lie in terms of the Labour Party. It is with the leader of the Labour Party. I ask the Minister to stick to his brief and to refer to the problems of Leigh.

Mr. White: Is the hon. Gentleman a wet?

Mr. Morrison: I understand the problem of the hon. Member for Newton. I was somewhat bamboozled, but perhaps I was wrong.

Mr. White: Is the hon. Gentleman a wet or a dry?

Mr. Morrison: Was he arguing for mammoth intervention? According to him we must have a solution. That appears to be the solution that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is proposing. I apologise if I misunderstood the position that he was putting before the House. However, he has put me right and we now know his position.
The hon. Member for Leigh explained that there are serious unemployment problems in his constituency. He blamed them on the Government's strategy. He says that we are following a monetarist strategy. I argue that we are following not a monetarist strategy but a commonsense economic point of view—namely, living within the family budget. No doubt we shall debate that in the House for a long time.
I appreciate the points that both hon. Members made about the Leigh travel-to-work area. The subject of Ward and Goldstone was raised. I understand that it is the second largest employer in the area and that it has given notification of 306 redundancies. I also understand that the company has already made an application under the temporary short-time working compensation scheme in respect of 250 workers. It is understood from the firm that it proposes to extend the scheme to cover all 306 jobs. My Department is considering the application for 250 workers. Assuming that the scheme is approved in respect of all 306 workers, there should be no redundancies.
There are signs that the economy is on the upturn. Inflation is falling and we are seeing more moderate pay settlements. In the last six months of 1980 the number of strikes was the lowest since and war and the number of days lost was the lowest since 1966. Many firms are finding new markets and making themselves more competitive both here and overseas. I hope that both hon. Members, who have understandably raised important constituency points, will realise that those two aspects of the economy are important in terms of jobs in the long term. We must be competitive, and firms must make profits. In addition, we must have firms that trade overseas.
I hope that both hon. Members will agree that it is important that new firms should come up. Inevitably, there

is a wheel, and some firm will come up as others go down. The importance of the North-West is that small companies should be emerging. I understand that the local authority is engaged in the building of a small industrial estate of 18 units in Victoria Street for letting to small businesses.
I also understand that in Atherton six nursery units have recently been constructed, and all have been let. They are the seed corn of the future and, providing that they are successful, will offer many jobs. Whatever political philosophy we may follow, success matters when it comes to jobs. In addition, I understand that there is a National Coal Board project in hand for the opening of two opencast mining sites in the Atherton area. I do not know what will come of that, but if they go ahead more jobs will result.
I hope that both hon. Members will accept that the Government have already played a role in terms of financial assistance in the past two years. Under section 7 of the Industry Act financial assistance has been given to the tune of £1·4 million for four projects in the Leigh travel-to-work area, involving a total estimated investment of £8·7 million. The estimated number of jobs associated with those projects was 623. It would be wrong to suggest that the Government do not care. Government and taxpayers' money has been invested.
During the same period, £101,000 was offered under section 8 of the Industry Act for six projects involving a total estimated investment of £383,000. Again, that is an example of the Government's allocating taxpayers' money to the area. As for schemes that the Department sponsors, or that are sponsored under the remit of the Manpower Services Commission, the Government have a good record.
All is not entirely gloom and doom in the Leigh travel-to-work area. In the past year, 2,500 people found work through the jobcentres in the area, and we estimate that four times that number filled vacancies there. In other words, 10,000 people in the travel-to-work area found jobs in the year ending April 1981. That means that there is a volatility in the labour market and there are opportunities for the unemployed to find work. I accept that the situation would be better if the unemployment rate were lower, but jobs are available and will, I am sure, continue to be available.
The Department has a good record in terms of special employment measures. The youth opportunities programme has been successful. In the Wigan metropolitan district, which covers Leigh, about 3,200 young people entered the programme last year. This year the Manpower Services Commission is making available to its Manchester, West office—I cannot give the figures for the Wigan district, because they are not yet available—sufficient funds to provide opportunities for 12,000 young people.
We are concerned, as is the hon. Member for Leigh, about school leavers, and we are doing all that we can to ensure that their opportunities are as—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MEMBERMR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.